4 total
Stay of order to pay $500,000 in animal care costs granted pending judicial review.
The moving parties, operators of a dog sledding business, sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision requiring them to pay over $500,000 for the costs of care of over 100 sled dogs removed by animal welfare authorities.
The stay was sought pending the determination of two related applications for judicial review challenging the underlying compliance and removal orders.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm due to the potential forfeiture and euthanization of the specially trained dogs, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay to prevent the judicial reviews from becoming moot.
The court granted the stay on terms, including a requirement for future submissions on financial security for ongoing care costs.
Statement of Account for animal removal varied from over $1.1 million to $505,760.
The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for over $1.1 million relating to the removal and care of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business.
The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the charges reflect actual and reasonable costs for necessaries.
The Board varied the transportation and veterinary costs to $Nil, finding that transportation for removal is not a necessary, the care during transport fell below prescribed standards, and the respondent failed to prove the veterinary costs did not arise from its own care.
The boarding costs were reduced to $505,760 based on a reasonable daily rate of $20 per dog, resulting in a total varied Statement of Account of $505,760.
Application for judicial review of municipal resolution dismissed; no evidence of procedural unfairness or bad faith.
The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal council resolution directing staff to proceed with the development of an arena/event centre.
The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, arguing that a staff update report failed to include requested information.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct by the council.
The court also noted that while an alternative statutory remedy existed under the Municipal Act, it exercised its discretion to hear the judicial review to avoid further delay in the long-standing planning process.
Tribunal scheduled a 27-day hearing and directed parties to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order.
A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision.
The Tribunal scheduled a 27-day hearing to commence in April 2023.
The parties were directed to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order, and participants with common concerns were directed to submit joint statements to avoid duplication.
