Jason Tam

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions and orders of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000, to be awarded at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought motions to dismiss the appellant's multiple appeals and applications for abuse of process, citing his refusal to consolidate matters, voluminous non-compliant filings, and reliance on artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) that generated false citations and veterinary opinions.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the motion to dismiss, finding that while the appellant's conduct was significantly non-compliant, it did not warrant the exceptional remedy of dismissal.

However, the Board granted the alternative relief in part, striking the appellant's non-compliant submissions from the record for the immediate hearings to prevent prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog and the subsequent decision to keep the dog in care by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed due to a severe, untreated eye condition that a veterinarian advised required immediate care to alleviate distress.

The Board found that the dog was in distress and that removal was necessary.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the dog in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned, given the appellant's failure to recognize the dog's medical needs and the unsanitary living conditions.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in care (DTK) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding 35 dogs removed from his property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were living in unsanitary, hazardous conditions and suffering from untreated medical issues, including chronic eye injuries and parasite infections.

Relying on expert veterinary evidence and the appellant's history of non-compliance with previous orders, the Board concluded it was necessary to keep the dogs in care to relieve their distress and that returning them would place them in further distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of his dog.

The Board found that while the dog was in distress and removal was justified, the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the veterinary costs and the full duration of the boarding costs.

The Statement of Account was varied, reducing veterinary costs to zero and boarding costs to $405.00.

The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $40,302.09 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of 33 dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the Respondent failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove the veterinary costs were actual and reasonable, as the supporting invoices were heavily redacted, lacked explanation, and appeared to contain duplicate charges.

The Board reduced the veterinary costs from $31,347.71 to zero.

The Board also reduced the boarding costs from $8,954.38 to $5,515.80 due to inconsistencies and calculation errors in one of the invoices.

The Appellant was ordered to pay the varied amount of $5,515.80.

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of 33 Boston Terriers removed by Animal Welfare Services due to distress.

The respondent provided extensive veterinary evidence demonstrating the dogs were kept in unsanitary conditions with high ammonia levels and suffered from untreated medical issues, including severe ocular disease and wounds from fighting.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence to show the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that returning the dogs would place them in distress.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services for 33 Boston Terriers.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with previous orders requiring veterinary care and improvements to unsanitary and hazardous living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress due to a lack of food, water, sanitary living conditions, and necessary veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the removal was necessary to alleviate the dogs' distress.

The Appellant requested reconsideration of a decision rejecting his appeal of a Statement of Account related to his dog.

The appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the 10-business day legislative time period.

The Appellant argued that his health issues caused confusion regarding timelines and that procedural fairness warranted accepting the late filing.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the request, finding it had no jurisdiction to extend the statutory appeal period and noting the Appellant had successfully filed nine other appeals during the same period.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to permit evidence admitted in an appeal of a Notice of Removal to be treated as admitted in a subsequent Application for Return proceeding involving the same 33 dogs.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion pursuant to section 15.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding it appropriate given the proceedings involved the same animals and arose out of the same circumstances.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account was issued.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the required time, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of the removal and decision to keep the animal, arguing the matters were moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it has no jurisdiction to order the return of an animal once forfeited to the Crown, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeals.

The moving party sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had upheld a Board decision regarding the removal of 41 cats due to unsanitary conditions and a substantial statement of account for their care, finding the moving party's stay motion moot as the cats were forfeited to the Crown.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to set aside, finding no substantiated evidence for the moving party's asserted reasons for delay and concluding that the proposed appeal lacked merit, especially given a prior extension of time had already been granted.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care following its removal and subsequent surgery.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account for the dog's care within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal after forfeiture and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Animal Care Review Board decision upholding the warrantless seizure of 41 cats from her apartment.

The applicant failed to attend the Board hearing to present her Charter arguments, and the Board proceeded in her absence, finding the warrantless entry justified under s. 29 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's refusal to grant a further adjournment was procedurally fair and its conclusion on the warrantless entry was reasonable.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request to stay a decision of the Animal Care Review Board.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from the applicant's residence and issued a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the stay motion was moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown due to non-payment.

The panel also upheld the motion judge's finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the removal of 41 cats from her apartment, the decision to keep them in care, and a statement of account for their care.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing, and the Board proceeded in her absence.

The Board found that the warrantless entry was justified due to critical distress, as the cats were living in unsanitary conditions without food or water while the appellant was in police custody.

The Board declined to return the animals, finding they would be at risk of distress, and confirmed the statement of account for $23,969.95.

The appellant appealed the removal of 41 cats from her apartment, the decision to keep them in care, and a statement of account for their care.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing and her request for an adjournment was denied.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animal welfare inspector lawfully entered the apartment under the critical distress provisions of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, as the cats were living in unsanitary conditions without food or water.

The Board declined to order the return of the cats, finding they would be at risk of distress, and confirmed the statement of account for $23,969.95.

The appellant appealed the removal and decision to keep in care of 63 animals from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The animals were removed after multiple inspections revealed ongoing non-compliance with orders regarding access to food, water, adequate bedding, and safe enclosures.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed back in distress if returned.

The appeal was dismissed and the Board declined to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a compliance order and a notice of removal concerning 22 dogs.

The appellant was hospitalized due to an assault when the orders were issued and executed.

The Board found the compliance order was fundamentally flawed as it was addressed to an unknown person, not properly served, gave an unreasonably short compliance time, and was based on an inadequate inspection.

The Board revoked the compliance order and ordered the return of the 22 dogs and five puppies born post-removal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog and a Statement of Account for $1,156.27 following the removal of his dog and cat.

The animals were removed due to concerns of distress, including inadequate care and inappropriate sexual touching by the appellant.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal to return the dog, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing distress had ceased to exist.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account, as the appellant did not provide evidence of an inability to pay.