Deanna Exner

The appellant appealed compliance orders, a notice of removal, and statements of account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding poultry, waterfowl, and rabbits on her farm.

The Board found the initial inspection lawful under the PAWS Act.

The Board confirmed the removal of the animals was justified due to distress caused by cold stress, unsanitary conditions, and lack of proper care.

Statement of Account #2 was confirmed, and Statement of Account #3 was slightly varied.

The compliance order for the remaining birds was confirmed with an extended compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Compliance Order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to have a veterinarian assess her cattle.

During a case conference, the parties reached a settlement to modify the order to apply to two specific cattle and extend the compliance deadline.

The Board issued a consent order modifying the Compliance Order under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, and the appellant agreed to withdraw her appeal.

The appellants appealed the removal of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business properties by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed following non-compliance with previous orders regarding tether lengths and dog house conditions.

The Board found that while some puppies were not in distress and must be returned immediately, the majority of the dogs were in distress due to inadequate tether lengths, lack of insulation, and poor state of repair of their shelters.

The Board ordered the return of the remaining dogs subject to the appellants achieving compliance with specific standards of care, including three-metre tethers and insulated dog houses.

The appellants run a dog sledding business from which over 200 dogs were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay, based on the respondent's redaction of boarding facility and veterinarian information from disclosure on the grounds of public interest litigation privilege.

The Board found the redacted information was not protected by privilege, noting it had been disclosed in previous cases.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted information to the appellants' counsel, subject to an undertaking not to release it to anyone else, including the appellants.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.

The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.

The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.

However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding and horse-riding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's removal of over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs and dismissal of the proceedings, or alternatively an interim stay, alleging untimely and incomplete disclosure by the respondent.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of outstanding disclosure and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding business, brought a motion seeking the return of over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector or a stay of the removal orders.

They argued the search warrants leading to the removal were based on misleading Information to Obtain (ITOs).

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice, which issued the warrants.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay of the removal orders, arguing that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the Animal Care Review Board filed a factum in a related judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's factum did not demonstrate aggressive partisanship and that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to the individual decision-maker, not the entire tribunal.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to inspect the dogs, arguing they needed to take their own measurements and expressing concern over the dogs' welfare after three dogs died in the respondent's care.

The Animal Care Review Board found it had jurisdiction to order an inspection under Rule 9.3(d) because the respondent intended to rely on measurements taken during the removal.

However, the Board declined to order the inspection, finding it would not be proportionate or efficient to inspect over 200 dogs for measurements, and noting that the appellants' welfare concerns would be addressed by a separate disclosure order.

The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought two motions to strike grounds of appeal, including Charter claims, related to the removal of over 200 dogs from the appellants' dog sledding business.

The appellants requested an adjournment of the motions because a recent disclosure order required the respondent to produce extensive materials regarding the removal and care of the animals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the adjournment, finding that the pending disclosure would facilitate a more open process and informed participation by providing factual context relevant to the motions.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to remove over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion for further disclosure, including documentation of the removal, the subsequent care of the dogs, and the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) used for the search warrants.

The respondent refused, arguing the information was irrelevant.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested disclosure was relevant to whether the removal was lawful and necessary for a full understanding of the issues.

The appellants, owners of a dog sledding business, appealed the removal of over 200 dogs by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a preliminary motion seeking the interim return of the dogs pending the full hearing, arguing that a multiplicity of proceedings between the parties offended natural justice.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the other proceedings did not address the same issues and were mostly initiated by the appellants themselves.

Furthermore, under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board only has the authority to order the return of animals after a full hearing on the merits, unless both parties consent, which did not occur here.

The Animal Care Review Board considered requests for reconsideration from both the appellants and the respondent regarding a previous decision concerning the care of sled dogs.

The respondent sought to reinstate original compliance dates, arguing the Board erred by extending them without reasons or evidence.

The appellants argued the Board incorrectly interpreted the requirement in Regulation 444/19 that outdoor dogs must have a chain at least 3 meters long.

The Board dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness that would warrant reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered her horse not be returned to her.

She argued the Board committed jurisdictional and procedural fairness errors, made errors of fact and law, and heard false evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness in denying adjournments, correctly placing the burden of proof on the appellant for a section 38(1) appeal, and noting that no written application under section 38(3) was before the Board.

The allegations of false evidence were also dismissed as they pertained to closing submissions, not witness testimony.

The respondent, a convenience store clerk, sold cigarettes to a 17-year-old test shopper after misreading the birth year on the shopper's identification due to 'human error'.

She was convicted of selling tobacco to a minor under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, but the summary conviction appeal court overturned the conviction, finding her honest mistake satisfied the statutory defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the statutory due diligence defence requires a reasonable belief formed after exercising reasonable care in reviewing the identification, which a mere unexplained human error does not satisfy.

The appellant, a store clerk, sold cigarettes to a 17-year-old test shopper without asking for identification and was convicted under the Smoke Free Ontario Act.

He appealed, arguing that the random compliance check constituted entrapment because the authorities lacked reasonable suspicion that he or the store were engaged in illegal activity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the criminal law doctrine of entrapment, specifically the requirement for reasonable suspicion, does not apply to bona fide random test shopping used to monitor compliance with regulatory statutes.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for violations of hours of work, overtime, and public holiday provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued that its employees, who install and maintain automated irrigation systems, were employed in 'landscape gardening' and therefore exempt from these provisions under Regulation 325.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard expert evidence on horticulture and landscaping, concluding that the installation and maintenance of irrigation systems are integral to sustaining plant life and thus fall within the definition of landscape gardening.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay and directed the return of funds held in trust to the employer.

The applicant sought an adjournment of her application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision, advising the Board the day before the hearing that she could not obtain leave from her current employer in Vancouver.

The responding employer opposed the adjournment, while the Ministry of Labour supported it.

The Board granted the adjournment with reluctance due to the late notice and inconvenience to the employer, giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, but directed her to provide particulars of the remedy sought.

The applicant employer appealed an inspector's order requiring it to pay a joint health and safety committee member premium pay for attending a committee meeting on his scheduled day off.

The collective agreement provided that committee members would be paid at their straight time hourly rate for monthly meetings.

The Board held that the collective agreement's specific provision regarding committee meeting pay took precedence over general overtime provisions, and that straight time pay was 'proper' within the meaning of section 9(35) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The application was allowed and the inspector's order was rescinded.