Animal Care Review Board
FILE: 10003/ACRB
CASE NAME: Myers v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 17(1) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, as amended
Chantal Myers Appellant
-and-
Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATORS: Louise Menard, Presiding Member Nicole Treksler, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: No one appeared
For the Respondent: Steven Toy, Senior Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Heard in Trenton: February 8, 2016
Overview
1The Appellant appeals an order issued by the Respondent, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“OSPCA”) dated January 20, 2016 requiring her to have her dog “Trill” examined by a veterinarian with special attention to “parasites (ears), body condition and nutrition advice”.
2The Appellant complied with the Order. On January 26, 2016, Dr. Steen of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital examined her dog.
3On January 26, 2016, the OSPCA revoked the order as it had been complied with.
4The Appellant is seeking reimbursement of the costs she incurred for the veterinarian visit. It is her position that her dog, Trill, was not in distress and that the January 20, 2016 order should not have been issued.
Preliminary Issue
5A hearing was scheduled to be heard before the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”) for Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Trenton, Ontario. The Appellant did not appear at the scheduled time. During a break in the hearing, Senior Inspector Toy called the Appellant and reminded her of the hearing and she hung up on him.
6In accordance with section 6 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure, the Board proceeded with the hearing, in the absence of the Appellant, in order to determine whether the January 20, 2016 order was justified and whether the Appellant should be reimbursed for the costs incurred for the veterinarian visit.
Evidence
7In response to an email received by the Quinte Humane Society that an animal had been left alone in a house for four days, Inspector S.W. Ridder of the OSPCA attended at the Appellant’s premises.
8Upon entering the premises, Inspector Ridder observed a brindle Boxer cross dog that was shaking its head and scratching itself. He noticed that the dog’s belly was pink and that the dog’s ears were very dirty. He also noted the dog to be thin. He believed the dog to be in distress and issued an order to have the dog examined by a veterinarian with special attention to “parasites (ears), body condition and nutrition advice”.
9On January 26, 2016, Dr. Steen saw the dog. He testified that he examined Trill and observed that the dog was underweight and suffered a minor coat issue. The inside of the dog’s ears were darkly pigmented which suggested a chronic irritation. He did not know the cause of the problem; however, he suspected it could be allergies, poor diet and/or parasites. No tests were done, as the Appellant did not bring in a fecal sample.
10Dr. Steen recommended a nutrition plan and recommended that the Appellant bring Trill in for re-examination in two to three months.
11As the Appellant did not appear at the hearing, there was no evidence presented on her behalf, including evidence of the cost to the Appellant of the January 26, 2016 visit to Dr. Steen to have Trill examined.
Issues
12The issues before the Board are:
a) whether the Appellant’s dog was in distress as defined in the Act and if it was reasonable for Inspector Ridder to have issued the January 20, 2016 order.
b) whether the cost to the Appellant of complying with the order should be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant.
Law
13The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:
“Distress” is defined in section 1 of the Act as follows:
Interpretation
- In this Act...
“distress” means the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect:
Order to owner of animals
- (1) Where an inspector or an agent of the Society has reasonable grounds for believing that an animal is in distress and the owner or custodian of the animal is present or may be found promptly, the inspector or agent may order that the owner or custodian to,
(a) take such action as may, in the opinion of the inspector or agent, be necessary to relieve the animal of its distress; or
(b) have the animal examined and treated by a veterinarian at the expense of the owner or custodian.
Powers of the Board
17 (6) After a hearing…the Board may,
a) respecting an order made under subsection 13 (1), confirm, revoke or modify the order appealed against;
c) order that the whole or any part of the cost to the owner or custodian of an animal of complying with an order made under subsection 13(1) be paid by the Society to the owner or custodian.
Conclusion
14The Board finds that Inspector Ridder believed, on reasonable grounds, that the dog Trill was in distress when he issued the order for the Appellant to have her dog examined by a veterinarian. Since the Appellant was not present at the hearing, the Board was not presented with any evidence to rebut the Respondent’s evidence. Accordingly, the Board confirms the order appealed against by the Appellant pursuant to s. 17 (6) (a) of the Act, although it has since been revoked because it was complied with.
15As the Board has found that the Inspector had reasonable grounds for believing that Trill was in distress when the order was issued, the Board denies the Appellant’s request pursuant to s. 17(6)(c) of the Act for an order compelling the Respondent to pay her for the cost of the visit to the veterinarian. It is noteworthy that no evidence of the cost for the visit to the veterinarian was presented at the hearing or filed with the Board.
Decision
16Appeal is dismissed.
Louise Menard, Presiding Member
Nicole Treksler, Member
Released: February 18, 2016