OACRB 2020

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that upheld a compliance order and the removal of her dog under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The appellant argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by failing to ensure fulsome disclosure, denying an adjournment, failing to provide instructions for a written hearing, and making a decision without a hearing.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the appellant had received disclosure, refused an offered adjournment, was provided clear instructions in a prior order, and failed to participate in the written hearing after refusing to cooperate in the teleconference hearing.

The appellant appealed Statements of Account totaling $60,625.13 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care and boarding of 40 animals removed from her property.

The animals were removed under the OSPCA Act after inspectors and a veterinarian determined they were in distress due to inadequate shelter, bedding, and nutrition.

The appellant argued the animals were not in distress and that she had arranged to relinquish them to a new owner on the day of removal.

The Animal Care Review Board found the removal was appropriate for all animals except one duck, as the evidence established the animals lacked adequate shelter and were in distress.

The Board confirmed the Statements of Account as reasonable, ordering the appellant to pay the total amount less any costs associated with the duck.

The appellant appealed an order of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector resulting in the removal of three dogs and one cat from his residence.

After failing to attend a case conference and the peremptory hearing, and failing to contact the respondent for a reinspection, the Animal Care Review Board found the appellant had abandoned his appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed three Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for transportation, boarding, and miscellaneous costs incurred after her animals were removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive but did not dispute the removal or the necessity of the costs.

The Board found the costs were reasonable, noting the respondent's obligation to properly transport and board the animals and the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim that the costs were excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order issued by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, requiring them to have their 16-year-old dog examined by a veterinarian.

The inspector observed the dog to be overweight, struggling to stand, and having sores and respiratory issues.

The Board accepted the expert veterinary evidence that the dog was likely suffering from osteoarthritis and was in distress.

The Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress and that a veterinary examination was necessary, but modified the compliance dates to allow additional time.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding five tortoises, three birds, four lizards, and three dogs removed from their home due to non-compliance with previous orders and to relieve the animals' distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that all the removed animals were in distress at the time of removal due to poor husbandry, lack of water, and unsanitary conditions.

The Board ordered the return of one dog and two budgies, finding the appellants could properly care for them, but declined to return the exotic animals due to the appellants' inability to maintain the required standard of care.

The appellants were also ordered to pay $27,000 for the costs of caring for the animals.

The appellants appealed the removal of two animals from their premises under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Following a case conference, the appellants failed to produce documents, respond to communications from the Board, or appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Board concluded that the appellants did not intend to pursue the appeal and dismissed it as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a removal order under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, which resulted in the removal of two horses, two ponies, and six chickens from her farm.

The animals were removed after an inspection revealed they were in distress, with the equines requiring urgent hoof care and the chickens living in poor conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that all the removed animals were in distress.

However, while the Board confirmed the removal of the horses and ponies as necessary to relieve their distress, it revoked the removal order for the chickens, finding that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to address their housing conditions before removal.

The appellant appealed 19 orders issued by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act regarding the care and seizure of livestock.

The Board found that the appellant was an owner of the animals, but because he was subject to a judicial undertaking prohibiting him from owning or caring for animals, the seized animals could not be returned to him.

The Board confirmed the orders regarding the seizure of cattle, goats, and a rooster, and modified an order regarding the care of pot-bellied pigs to apply to the appellant's daughter, who was found to be a co-owner.

The appellant appealed the removal of 27 dogs from her trailer by an animal welfare inspector and the subsequent statement of account for their care.

The Board found that the dogs were in distress due to overcrowding, high temperatures, and unsanitary conditions in the trailer.

The Board declined to return the dogs, finding the appellant had no viable plan for their future care.

The statement of account was varied and reduced to $69,295.00 to reflect inconsistencies in the evidence regarding a pregnant dog and a litter.

The appellant appealed the removal of her dog by an animal welfare inspector.

The inspector had issued a compliance order requiring the appellant to have the dog examined by a veterinarian due to concerns about the dog's poor physical condition and the appellant's admission that she was not feeding or watering the dog.

When the appellant failed to comply with the order, the dog was removed.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector had reasonable grounds to issue the compliance order and that the removal was lawful.

The Board declined to return the dog to the appellant, finding no evidence that she was willing or able to provide the necessary lifelong veterinary care.