OACRB 2016

The OSPCA removed 71 dogs from the appellants' property, alleging they were in distress due to overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and lack of veterinary care.

The appellants, who operated a dog rescue, appealed the removal, arguing the dogs were healthy and any distress was caused by the OSPCA.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were indeed in distress due to severe overcrowding, high parasite loads, overgrown contaminants, and untreated medical and dental conditions.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to relieve the distress.

The Board ordered the dogs returned subject to strict conditions, including reducing overcrowding, sanitizing the environment, and providing necessary veterinary care.

The appellants were also ordered to pay over $378,000 in veterinary and boarding costs incurred by the OSPCA.

The appellant appealed a Compliance Order and the removal of her cat by the OSPCA.

Unbeknownst to the appellant, the OSPCA had euthanized the cat shortly after removal.

The Board found that the OSPCA acted prematurely in removing the cat while it was under a veterinarian's treatment plan, and failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to notify the appellant of the euthanization forthwith.

Consequently, the Board ordered that the appellant is not required to pay any of the $698.17 in costs incurred by the OSPCA for the care and euthanization of the cat.

The appellant appealed the removal of three dogs and a cat from her residence by the OSPCA.

The OSPCA had previously issued a compliance order requiring the appellant to have the animals examined by a veterinarian due to their poor condition and unsanitary living environment.

The appellant failed to comply with the order.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to neglect, lack of medical care, and their living environment, and that their removal was necessary.

The Board ordered the animals returned subject to conditions, including cleaning the premises, obtaining veterinary care, and paying boarding costs.

The appellant appealed an order issued by the OSPCA requiring her to have her dog examined by a veterinarian.

The appellant complied with the order but sought reimbursement for the veterinary costs, arguing the dog was not in distress.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Animal Care Review Board proceeded in her absence and found that the OSPCA inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress due to its physical condition.

The Board confirmed the order and denied the request for reimbursement.