Joanna Chan

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding five rabbits removed from his property.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of mootness, arguing the rabbits had been automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act because the appellant failed to pay or appeal the Statement of Account within the prescribed timelines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that the forfeiture was final and irreversible, rendering the appeal moot as the rabbits could not be returned.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the lack of an adversarial context or special circumstances.

The appellant appealed the removal of her three dogs and the subsequent decision to keep them in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The dogs were found confined in the appellant's van in unsanitary conditions, with high ammonia levels and no access to water.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that returning them to the appellant would likely place them back in distress, given her history of non-compliance with care standards.

The appeals were dismissed and the dogs were ordered to remain in the respondent's care.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his four dogs.

The dogs were removed after video evidence showed the appellant physically abusing them in an elevator and hallway.

Relying on expert veterinary and behavioural evidence, the Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in physical and psychological distress.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to relieve the dogs' distress and dismissed the appeal.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General sought judicial review of a Presiding Coroner's interlocutory decision regarding the scope of an upcoming inquest into seven deaths at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Coroner had included issues of correctional programming and staff absenteeism in the scope, and admitted expert evidence on programming.

The Divisional Court held that the challenge to the evidentiary ruling was premature.

On the scope issues, the Court found the Coroner's decision reasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to warrant considering whether programming and staffing were contributing factors to the deaths.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought to review the Court of Appeal's dismissal of her appeal from a Superior Court order that struck her claim as an abuse of process.

The original claim arose from a 2018 administrative error by Service Ontario that erroneously transferred registered vehicle ownership.

The moving party's motion under Rule 59.06 alleged that the panel made false statements and that one panel member was biased.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the moving party had already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $91,068.22 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 40 sheep and 5 lambs removed from her care.

The appellant did not dispute the reasonableness of the costs but argued for a reduction or revocation based on financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable and supported by invoices.

The Board declined to reduce or revoke the SOA, noting the appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence of financial hardship.

The SOA was confirmed in full.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $15,129.72 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of removing, boarding, and providing veterinary care for a flock of approximately 40 sheep.

The Board found that the costs were reasonable and reflected the actual costs of necessaries provided to the sheep, which were found in dire health conditions.

The appellant failed to provide evidence that the costs were excessive.

The Board confirmed the SOA.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her flock of approximately 40 sheep in care.

The sheep had been removed after the appellant failed to comply with an order to provide adequate feed and veterinary care.

Veterinary evidence established that the sheep were suffering from severe starvation, anemia, and a high parasite load due to prolonged neglect.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe it was necessary to keep the sheep in care to relieve their distress and that they would likely be placed back in distress if returned to the appellant, given her failure to recognize their dire health condition and unwillingness to change her husbandry practices.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after the appellant failed to comply with an order to provide veterinary treatment for birth complications.

The appellant appealed the compliance order but failed to appeal or pay the subsequent Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

As a result, the dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that the appeal was moot because the forfeiture was irreversible and the Board had no jurisdiction to order the return of the animal.

The appellant appealed a compliance order and the subsequent removal of her flock of approximately 40 sheep by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the flock was in distress due to lack of proper nutrition, veterinary care, and unsanitary living conditions.

The appellant failed to comply with the compliance order within the specified timeframe.

The Board confirmed the compliance order, found the removal was necessary and in accordance with the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, and dismissed the appeal, making no order for the return of the flock.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for $1,536.80 in costs incurred to remove a broken halter from his horse.

The appellant argued the intervention was unnecessary and the costs excessive, and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the horse was in distress and the costs for the emergency vendor services were reasonable.

The Board also found the appellant failed to establish a limited ability to pay, noting inconsistencies in his financial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The Appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of her two Great Danes due to distress and unsanitary conditions, and confirmed a Statement of Account.

The Appellant argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of fact, heard false evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Board found the Appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence or meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep Animal(s), and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her two Great Danes.

The animals were removed from the appellant's property after an inspection revealed highly unsanitary and hazardous conditions, including high ammonia levels, feces and urine on the floors, and a lack of food and potable water.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress and that removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The Board declined to return the dogs, finding no evidence that the hazardous conditions had been remedied, and confirmed the Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs in the amount of $6,424.05.

The appellant appealed the removal of 15 equids, the subsequent Keep in Care decisions, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate shelter, water, and food, and confirmed the removal and Keep in Care decisions.

The Board also granted a confidentiality order to protect the appellant's personal health information.

The Statement of Account was confirmed but reduced on consent to remove trailer layover costs.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account totaling over $66,000 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care of 14 equines removed from her care.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing and provided no evidence to support her appeals.

The Board accepted the respondent's uncontested affidavit evidence demonstrating that the costs for boarding, veterinary care, and other necessaries were reasonable and necessary.

The Board confirmed both Statements of Account.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of two Animal Care Review Board decisions that upheld the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep her animals in care and confirmed the Statement of Account.

The appellant argued that the Board violated procedural fairness, made errors of fact and law, heard false evidence, and failed to consider new evidence regarding her disability and alternative boarding facilities.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no errors of fact or law, and that the proposed new evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could have been obtained prior to the original hearings.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of providing necessaries to 14 horses removed from her property.

The appellant argued that the transportation, boarding, veterinary, and farrier charges were excessive and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board reviewed the evidence, including affidavits from the regional supervisor and the attending veterinarian, and found the charges to be reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

The Board confirmed the revised SOA in the amount of $25,126.23.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep 14 horses in care after they were removed from her property.

The horses were seized following multiple compliance orders regarding inadequate shelter and muddy paddock conditions.

The only barn on the property was subject to a municipal order prohibiting its use.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that returning the horses would place them in distress due to the ongoing lack of viable shelter and failure to improve the ground conditions.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care (LTC) homes.

The plaintiffs alleged gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The court certified the class action solely on the negligence/gross negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care, finding it arguable that the Long-Term Care Homes Act imposes a private law duty of care on the Minister to protect LTC residents.

The fiduciary duty and Charter claims were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The class was limited to LTC residents and their families, excluding visitors.

The plaintiff moved to strike numerous paragraphs of the defendants' statements of defence on the basis of res judicata or abuse of process, arguing the defendants were seeking to re-litigate findings made by the Mining and Lands Tribunal (MLT) regarding a hydroelectric dam approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned pleadings fairly responded to the plaintiff's allegations of delay and misfeasance.

Furthermore, the court held that the MLT decision was merely a recommendation to the Minister and not a final judicial decision capable of grounding res judicata.

The motion against the Independent Electricity System Operator was also dismissed as it was not a party to the MLT proceeding.