Danielle Meuleman

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his appeal of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care.

The appellant argued the Board made errors of law and fact regarding the interpretation of 'distress' under the PAWS Act, relied too heavily on AZA guidelines, and violated procedural fairness.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and no violation of procedural fairness, noting the appellant was attempting to re-litigate the original appeal.

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep 9 birds removed from his property, appealed a Statement of Account for their care, and applied for their return.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the birds were kept in unsanitary conditions, lacked adequate space, and required veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal of the decision to keep and the application for return, finding that returning the birds would place them in distress.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $3,268.52 to $1,534.19, removing costs for injuries sustained during removal and adjusting for the Appellant's limited ability to pay.

The appellant applied for the return of her three animals (one dog, two cats) removed by Animal Welfare Services due to unsanitary conditions and hazardous objects in her home.

She also appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application for return, finding the appellant admitted her home was not yet in compliance with the cleanup order.

The Board varied the Statement of Account, deducting the cost of three vaccines for the dog because the appellant had provided proof of prior vaccination, but upheld the remaining costs as reasonable and found the appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of his cat, Odin, who was removed by Animal Welfare Services after the applicant's other cat died from falling off a 24th-floor balcony.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the conditions leading to Odin's removal had ceased to exist.

Specifically, the applicant had not addressed the balcony hazard and lacked a credible plan to provide necessary veterinary care for Odin's multiple health issues.

The application for the return of the animal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Non-Compliance and applied to revoke an Order issued under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act regarding the care of her animals.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, Animal Welfare Services revoked the Order.

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings for mootness.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board found the matters were moot because the revocation eliminated any live controversy and left the Board without a statutory remedy to grant.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot matters, citing judicial economy and its limited statutory jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep (DTK) 14 exotic animals in care and a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of the DTK and that the appellant lacked the necessary daily care plans, veterinary relationships, and adequate enclosures to ensure the animals would not be returned to distress.

The Board denied the appeal of the DTK and confirmed the revised SOA in the amount of $11,709.69 for the costs of boarding and veterinary care.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to her removed cats.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable, included errors, and that she lacked the financial means to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the majority of the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary evidence.

The Board deducted a cold storage fee and unsupported tax charges, but declined to reduce the account based on ability to pay, noting the appellant's history of animal removals and lack of insight.

The Statement of Account was varied to $18,300.35.

The appellant appealed the removal of several exotic animals from her home and shed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of enrichment, and improper housing.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal of two Macaques, a Fennec Fox, two Genets, and a Capuchin, finding they were in distress and their basic and species-specific standards of care were not met.

However, the Board ordered the return of one juvenile Macaque kept inside the home, finding it was adequately cared for and not in distress.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a prior motion decision that dismissed the appellant's appeal and applications under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Inspector argued the Board made an error of law in its statutory interpretation of section 38 and violated procedural fairness by not allowing submissions on that interpretation.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Inspector failed to demonstrate that the alleged error of law would have changed the outcome, and that the Inspector had been provided ample opportunity to make submissions during the original motion.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep in Care, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her eight dogs.

The animals were removed following an inspection that alleged unsanitary conditions, lack of water, and insufficient space.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were not in distress at the time of removal, noting evidence that they were provided with adequate water, space, and care.

The Board also found no reasonable grounds to keep the dogs in care, relying on expert veterinary testimony that any medical issues could have been addressed through orders rather than removal.

The Board ordered the dogs returned to the appellant and revoked the $13,934.44 Statement of Account.

Animal Welfare Services inspected the appellant's property and subsequently removed 46 cattle.

The appellant appealed the decision to remove the cattle.

However, the appellant had sold the cattle to a third party prior to their removal.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that because the appellant was no longer the owner of the cattle, the Board had no jurisdiction to order their return, rendering the appeal moot.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep their dog in care under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dog was removed based on a neighbour's allegations of physical abuse.

The Board found the neighbour's testimony lacked credibility and was motivated by an ongoing dispute.

Finding no physical evidence of abuse and accepting the appellants' evidence of proper care, the Board concluded the respondent lacked reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be in distress if returned.

The appeal was allowed and the dog was ordered returned to the appellants.

The applicant sought the return of her dog, which had been removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to obtain veterinary care.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the subsequent Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being forfeited to the Crown.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of an animal that had been forfeited and become the property of the Crown.

The appellant's sixteen horses were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellant filed an appeal of a Statement of Account and applications for the revocation of an order and the return of the animals.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal and applications.

The Board granted the motion, dismissing the Statement of Account appeal because the appellant failed to articulate grounds of appeal within the prescribed period and an amendment would cause prejudice and delay.

The application for revocation was dismissed as moot, and the application for return of animals was dismissed because it failed to address how the conditions causing distress had ceased and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying removal decision.

The appellants appealed a final Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $1,431,180.00 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of 229 dogs removed from their properties.

The Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to prove the costs were incurred and reasonable, as the $20.00 per dog per day rate was significantly less than the actual boarding costs.

The appellants failed to prove that the dogs were not provided with adequate care, that the amounts were inappropriate, or that the SOA should be varied due to financial hardship.

The Board confirmed the final SOA in full.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding, veterinary care, and animal care for cats and dogs removed from her care.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the costs in the first Statement of Account were reasonable, except for costs incurred after the animals were forfeited to the Crown and an unexplained locksmith invoice, reducing the amount by $2,550.98.

The Board confirmed the second Statement of Account in full, ordering the appellant to pay a total of $128,776.44.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $13,550.80 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after 17 animals were removed from their care.

The Board found that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and necessary, supported by expert veterinary testimony and invoices.

The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify varying the account on that basis.

The Board varied the Statement of Account slightly to $13,451.36 to reflect a refund for a different testing method.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his two dogs, and applied for their return.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with a previous order to have them assessed by a veterinarian for poor body condition and an eye issue.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs remained in distress and required ongoing veterinary care, denying the application for return.

The Board varied the Statement of Account by removing the cost of two baths, confirming the remaining amount of $917.58 for veterinary and boarding costs.

The applicants sought the return of two dogs and six cats that were removed by Animal Welfare Services due to non-compliance with an order regarding parasitic infections and unsanitary living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the application, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing the animals to be in distress had ceased to exist.

The Board noted the applicants' history of non-compliance, reliance on non-medical treatments, and uncertain living arrangements following a recent move to Saskatchewan.

The appellants appealed an order issued under s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, which accompanied the return of their horse.

The appellants argued the horse was not in distress at the time of return because the boarding facility had been approved by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board confirmed the order, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the horse would be returned to a state of distress based on the appellants' history of poor operational and financial planning, as well as ongoing credibility concerns.

The Board held that returning an animal with an order is justified when there are reasonable grounds to believe distress would reappear upon return.