Yun (Alice) Liu

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding three dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the dogs had been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to appeal or pay a Statement of Account within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals and that the appeal was moot with no live controversy.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep seven of his animals in care and applied for their return.

While the decision was pending, the appellant was released from custody and the animals were returned to him.

The Board found the appeal and application moot because the requested remedy had already been granted.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to decide the moot matters, finding no remaining adversarial context and that it would be an inefficient use of resources.

The appeal and application were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $20,938.65 in boarding and veterinary costs related to one adult cat and six kittens.

The adult cat was removed from the appellant's property, and the kittens were born in care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the medical care and boarding were necessary and the rates were generally reasonable, the appellant should not be responsible for all costs.

Specifically, the Board deducted costs for the adult cat's medical conditions likely caused by the respondent leaving the cat behind during an initial removal, and for the kittens' upper respiratory infections acquired after two months at the boarding facility.

The Statement of Account was varied to $15,293.95.

The applicant sought the return of 110 cats removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the application as moot, arguing the cats had been forfeited to the Crown because the applicant failed to appeal or pay a $72,397.26 statement of account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the forfeiture extinguished the applicant's ownership rights, leaving the Board without jurisdiction to order the animals' return.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no live controversy or special circumstances justifying the expenditure of resources.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding 11 dogs living in their vehicle.

The order required the appellants to provide adequate space, resting areas, appropriate food, isolate an aggressive dog, and seek veterinary care for two dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board revoked the requirements regarding space and resting areas due to insufficient evidence of distress.

The Board modified the remaining items, extending the compliance deadlines for providing appropriate food, isolating the aggressive dog, and obtaining veterinary care.

The appellants' request for the Minister to pay their veterinary costs was dismissed due to a lack of persuasive evidence.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services after his dog was removed for failing to comply with an order to seek veterinary care for an eye condition.

The Board found that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve its distress and ensure it received required surgery.

Although the dog had already been forfeited to the Crown due to a subsequent unappealed Statement of Account, the Board reviewed the initial Statement of Account.

The Board reduced the veterinary emergency fees to align with the provincial fee guide and further reduced the total amount payable to $160.00 based on the appellant's limited ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant did not dispute the costs but sought a reduction based on financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

However, considering the appellant's limited financial means as a 19-year-old mother of two, the Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owing by 50 percent to balance accountability with the appellant's ability to pay.