ANIMAL CARE REVIEW BOARD

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

cOMMISSION D’ÉTUDE DES SOINS AUX ANIMAUX

Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Date: 2020-07-21

Appeal under subsection 38(2) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 R.S.O. 2019, c. 13

Between:

Shelley Langstaff Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION

Panel: Helen Burgess, Member

Appearances: For the Appellant: Self-Represented For the Respondent: Michael Draper, counsel

Place and date of hearing: Toronto, ON, July 3, 2020 Heard by way of written submissions

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1The Appellant, Shelley Langstaff, appealed the removal of her dog, Marley, a 10-year-old black Chow Chow. Marley was removed as a result of the Appellant’s failure to comply with an order issued to her on May 28, 2020 (the “Compliance Order”) by Animal Welfare Inspector Debbie Hunt (“the Inspector”) pursuant to section 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act (the “Act”).¹ The Compliance Order required the Appellant to have Marley examined by a veterinarian by June 1, 2020 at 12:00pm and to provide the Inspector with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the examination findings, and the treatment(s) recommended.

2On June 26, 2020, the hearing commenced by teleconference but was adjourned due to the Appellant’s failure to cooperate in the proceedings. The Board issued an Order that the hearing was to proceed in writing, with submissions due by July 3, 2020. The parties were advised that the hearing would proceed whether or not one party failed to provide their submissions by the July 3rd deadline. The Appellant did not provide the Board with written submissions. The Board has, however, reviewed and considered her submissions accompanying her Notice of Appeal in reaching its decision in this matter.

3The Respondent submits that the following events took place, and formed the Inspector’s grounds to issue the May 28, 2020 Compliance Order:

a. The Inspector received complaints from community stakeholders of Warden Hilltop Community Center (“the Community Center”) located at 25 Mendelssohn St., Toronto, regarding a Chow-type dog who appeared unwell. Specifically, some residents and staff members of the Community Center had observed the Appellant, who also resided at the Community Center, dragging Marley by his leash on numerous occasions, leaving him out in the sun for prolonged periods of time, and not providing him with adequate water.

b. On May 28, 2020, the Inspector attended the Community Center and was met by Omar Buchanan, a staff member, who directed the Inspector to the Appellant’s location. When speaking with the Appellant, the Inspector observed Marley to be in a dog carrier that was too small for him. When the Inspector asked how Marley was doing, the Appellant pulled him out of the carrier by his two front legs. The Inspector observed Marley to be thin, very lethargic, with a dull and matted coat. She also observed Marley to be unresponsive to his name, and was not mindful of the people around him. Marley also did not have a water source available to him and appeared to be in discomfort as he was having difficulty extending his front legs.

c. The Appellant told the Inspector that people were poisoning Marley and that he was not the same dog she had the day prior because that dog was not as thin as this one. When asked whether she owned this dog, the Appellant confirmed ownership and stated that his name is Marley. Based on her observations, the Inspector believed that Marley was in distress and issued the Compliance Order to the Appellant.

d. Before departing, the Inspector asked the Appellant if she needed dog food. The Appellant advised that she was not feeding Marley the food she did have because it was poisoned and the water in the Community Center was poisoned. The Inspector provided the Appellant with six cans of canned dog food.

e. Prior to leaving the Community Center, the Inspector was approached by a man who was also residing at the Community Center and advised her that he was very concerned about the Appellant’s treatment of Marley. The man showed the Inspector a 10-second video on his cell phone depicting Marley being dragged by the Appellant using his leash.

4The Inspector attended the Community Center on June 1, 2020 at 11:15 am to follow-up with the Compliance Order issued to the Appellant on May 28, 2020, and the following events took place:

a. The Appellant was leaving the Community Center with Marley as the Inspector arrived. The Appellant told the Inspector that a veterinary appointment had been made for June 11, 2020. When the Inspector asked where the appointment was made, the Appellant began to walk away from the Inspector, shouted profanities at her, and refused to discuss the Compliance Order.

b. As the Appellant walked away with Marley, the Inspector observed Marley to have shallow and heavy breathing, that his legs were not bending properly, and the Appellant was pulling him using the leash. The Inspector followed the Appellant to the TTC bus shelter while the Appellant continued to scream profanities at the Inspector. The Inspector observed Marley’s gait to appear abnormal. The Inspector continued to make efforts to speak with the Appellant to obtain further information about the veterinary appointment, but the Appellant accused the Inspector of having relatives in the Community Center who were poisoning her.

c. Due to her concerns for Marley’s well-being, the Inspector requested the assistance of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”). By the time the police arrived, the Appellant had boarded a bus, which remained stationary. Members of the TPS boarded the bus, took possession of Marley, and turned him over to the Inspector. The Appellant left the scene to an unknown location and Marley was taken to the local Humane Society to be examined by a veterinarian.

d. On June 1, 2020 at 2:40 pm, the Inspector returned to the Community Center in an effort to locate the Appellant to serve her with a Notice of Removal. The Appellant was not there at that time so the Inspector left the Notice of Removal with a staff member and asked that it be provided to the Appellant upon her return.

e. Once Marley was examined by the Humane Society’s veterinarian, he was transferred at the veterinarian’s recommendation to the Animal Emergency Hospital, where he was admitted overnight for monitoring. He was returned to the local Humane Society on the morning of June 2, 2020.

f. On June 2, 2020, Marley was taken to the MacKay Animal Hospital at 421 Dundas Street, Whitby, for examination. The veterinarian at that hospital, Dr. Punniamoonthy, DVM, called the Inspector to advise that Marley was not doing well, and that x-rays could not be taken because he was anxious. She was concerned that he was still showing signs of dehydration and recommended that he be taken to the Emergency Hospital for overnight monitoring. Marley was admitted there for three days before being returned to the local Humane Society. Over the course of the three days, Marley received diagnostic testing and long-term treatment recommendations.

ISSUES

5The issues to be decided by the Board are:

a. Did the Inspector have reasonable grounds to believe that Marley was in distress, thereby lawfully issuing a Compliance Order?

b. If so, was Marley lawfully removed from the Appellant’s care?

c. Should an order be made for the return of Marley to the Appellant’s care?

RESULT

6The Board is satisfied that the Inspector had reasonable grounds to believe that Marley was in distress and was acting within her authority to issue a Compliance Order. The Board is further satisfied that the Appellant did not comply with the Compliance Order and therefore Marley was lawfully removed from her care. Finally, the Board finds that Marley should not be returned to the Appellant’s care because the evidence does not support a finding that she is willing or able to provide the medical treatment he requires, thereby causing him distress.

POWERS OF THE BOARD

7After a hearing, the Board may do one or more of the following:

a. Confirm, revoke or modify an order made under section 30.

b. Order that an animal removed under subsection 31 (1) or (2), or that was taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 31 (6) or 44 (8), be returned to the owner or custodian.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

i. Did the Inspector have reasonable grounds to believe that Marley was in distress, thereby making the Compliance Order that was issued on May 28, 2020, lawful?

8The Inspector’s authority to issue the Compliance Order and subsequently remove Marley from the Appellant’s care is central to this appeal.

9The Act provides an Inspector with authority to issue an Order to an owner where the Inspector believes the animal is in distress. “Distress” is defined in section 1(1) of the Act as:

The state of being:

(a) in need of proper care, water, food, or shelter;

(b) injured, sick or in pain or suffering or;

(c) abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.

10Section 30(1) of the Act further provides that:

An animal welfare inspector who has reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is in distress and who is able to promptly find the owner or custodian of the animal may order the owner or custodian to take such action as may, in the opinion of the inspector, be necessary to relieve the animal of its distress, which may include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, having the animal examined and treated by a veterinarian at the expense of the owner or custodian.

11In her Notice of Appeal, the Appellant acknowledged that Marley was “doing progressively poorly” since arriving at the Community Center and alleged that she and Marley have been sprayed with chemical pesticides “numerous times” as well as a “myriad” of other toxins there. The Appellant believes the sprays to be possibly cancerous. The Appellant also alleged that she and Marley have been repeatedly drugged at the Community Center with unknown substances, and that her complaints to the Community Center staff remained unaddressed. The Appellant denies that Marley’s poor condition was a result of her abuse or neglect. The Appellant acknowledged that Marley appeared to have lost weight.

12Based on the Inspector’s observations on May 28 2020, as well as the Appellant’s admissions that Marley’s condition was worsening and that she had not been feeding him or giving him water due to concerns that the food and water at the Community Center were poisoned, the Board finds that the Inspector had reasonable grounds to believe that Marley was in distress on the day the Compliance Order was issued, and that the Compliance Order was lawful.

ii. Was the removal of Marley from the Appellant’s care lawful?

13Pursuant to section 31(1) of the Act, “An animal welfare inspector may remove an animal from the place where it is and take possession of the animal for the purpose of providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress if, (c) an order respecting the animal has been made under section 30 and the order has not been complied with.

14Having found that there were reasonable grounds for issuance of the Compliance Order under section 30 of the Act, the Appellant was required to comply with its terms and conditions. One such term was to have Marley examined by a veterinarian by June 1, 2020 at 12:00pm. The Compliance Order clearly indicates that failing to comply with all the terms of the Compliance Order by the specified date may result in the removal of the animal who is the subject of the order.

15In her Notice of Appeal, the Appellant acknowledged that Marley had not been seen by a veterinarian by the Compliance Order deadline because she was unable to secure an appointment in the short time-frame provided. The Appellant indicated in her Notice of Appeal that she made an appointment with a veterinarian for June 11, 2020 at 1:00pm. The Board did not receive any information about where the appointment was made nor whether the Appellant made attempts to secure an appointment at different veterinary offices.

16Strictly speaking, the Appellant did not abide by the Compliance Order because Marley was not examined by a veterinarian by the June 1, 2020 deadline. The Board acknowledges that the 3-day time-frame provided to the Appellant to have her dog examined by a veterinarian was short, particularly in light of the fact that the City of Toronto was in the midst of a global pandemic and the time-frame fell over a weekend, when most veterinary offices offer limited appointments. The Respondent offered no explanation for the short time-frame. Despite this, the Board is satisfied that the Inspector had no alternative but to remove Marley from the Appellant’s care for failing to abide by the Compliance Order for the following reasons:

a. The Inspector made efforts to speak with the Appellant to ascertain the particulars of the veterinary appointment the Appellant said she made. However, the Inspector was unable to engage in any meaningful conversation with the Appellant or verify that an appointment had been made due to the Appellant’s lack of cooperation.

b. The Appellant is of no fixed address and may have been difficult to locate at a later time.

c. The Inspector had reasonable concerns for Marley’s well-being due to his poor physical condition (thinness, dehydration, visible pain in his legs, matted coat), the Appellant’s admission that she had not been feeding him or providing him with water, and the Inspector’s observations of Marley being dragged by the Appellant.

iii. Should an order be made for the return of Marley to the Appellant’s care?

17The Respondent submits that Marley will require lifelong pain management and a highly recommended surgery resulting from the diagnostic testing Marley received while at the Toronto Emergency Veterinary Hospital (TVEH). The Respondent submitted evidence, through medical examination records and a letter authored by veterinarian Dr. Ana Avellaneda, DVM of Marley’s diagnoses, which revealed the following:

a. Severe right elbow osteoarthrosis;

b. Incidental lumbar spondylosis;

c. Bilateral testicular masses with right testicular enlargement;

d. Cystic hyperplasia of the prostate.

18Dr. Avellaneda reported that Marley will require constant analgesic medication as well as regular veterinary examinations and follow-up. She also recommended that he be provided a quiet space to rest comfortably and adequate space to engage in moderate exercise to preserve the range of motion in his joints.

19The Appellant is of no fixed address and moves between community centers within the City of Toronto. In her Notice of Appeal, she stated that she is “most likely” eligible to obtain assistance for veterinary bills through the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). The Appellant further stated in her Notice of Appeal that she applied “months before” to the “PAWS program” for assistance with veterinary bills but never received a response.

20Despite evidence of some effort being made to obtain financial aid months prior to Marley’s removal, the Board has no information from the Appellant to consider in light of his recent diagnoses and treatment plan. With the Appellant’s failure to participate in the proceedings, the Board has no evidence before it that she is willing or able to provide the lifelong care that Marley requires. The Board finds that Marley should not be returned to the Appellant because doing so would place him in distress.

CONCLUSION

21The Board finds that the Inspector had reasonable grounds to believe that Marley was in distress based on her observations of Marley’s living conditions and physical condition, the Appellant’s admissions that she was not feeding him or providing him with water, and the veterinarian’s diagnoses and treatment plan, and therefore lawfully issued a Compliance Order on May 28, 2020.

22The Board finds that the Appellant did not comply with the May 28, 2020 Compliance Order and that Marley’s removal from the Appellant’s care was necessary to relieve Marley’s distress.

23Finally, the Board finds that Marley should not be returned to the Appellant for the following reasons:

a. There is no evidence on this appeal that the Appellant is willing and able to provide the ongoing care that Marley requires in light of his recent diagnoses; and

b. The evidence before the Board suggests that Marley would be placed in distress if he was to be returned to the Appellant.

ORDER

24The Board confirms the order made under section 30 of the Act and the removal order made under section 31(1) of the Act.

Released: July 21, 2020

_________________________­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Helen Burgess, Member

Footnotes

1. 12019, S.O. 2019, c. 13