OACRB 2021

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding business, brought a motion seeking the return of over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector or a stay of the removal orders.

They argued the search warrants leading to the removal were based on misleading Information to Obtain (ITOs).

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice, which issued the warrants.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay of the removal orders, arguing that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the Animal Care Review Board filed a factum in a related judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's factum did not demonstrate aggressive partisanship and that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to the individual decision-maker, not the entire tribunal.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding and horse-riding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's removal of over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs and dismissal of the proceedings, or alternatively an interim stay, alleging untimely and incomplete disclosure by the respondent.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of outstanding disclosure and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence.

The appellants run a dog sledding business from which over 200 dogs were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay, based on the respondent's redaction of boarding facility and veterinarian information from disclosure on the grounds of public interest litigation privilege.

The Board found the redacted information was not protected by privilege, noting it had been disclosed in previous cases.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted information to the appellants' counsel, subject to an undertaking not to release it to anyone else, including the appellants.

The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought two motions to strike grounds of appeal, including Charter claims, related to the removal of over 200 dogs from the appellants' dog sledding business.

The appellants requested an adjournment of the motions because a recent disclosure order required the respondent to produce extensive materials regarding the removal and care of the animals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the adjournment, finding that the pending disclosure would facilitate a more open process and informed participation by providing factual context relevant to the motions.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.

The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.

The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.

However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.

The appellants, owners of a dog sledding business, appealed the removal of over 200 dogs by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a preliminary motion seeking the interim return of the dogs pending the full hearing, arguing that a multiplicity of proceedings between the parties offended natural justice.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the other proceedings did not address the same issues and were mostly initiated by the appellants themselves.

Furthermore, under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board only has the authority to order the return of animals after a full hearing on the merits, unless both parties consent, which did not occur here.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of caring for two horses removed from his property.

The appellant argued he should not be liable for costs after October 19, 2020, claiming one horse was healthy enough to be returned then.

The Animal Care Review Board found the appellant's claims speculative and confirmed the Statement of Account, ordering the appellant to pay $5,132.26 for the costs of care.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to inspect the dogs, arguing they needed to take their own measurements and expressing concern over the dogs' welfare after three dogs died in the respondent's care.

The Animal Care Review Board found it had jurisdiction to order an inspection under Rule 9.3(d) because the respondent intended to rely on measurements taken during the removal.

However, the Board declined to order the inspection, finding it would not be proportionate or efficient to inspect over 200 dogs for measurements, and noting that the appellants' welfare concerns would be addressed by a separate disclosure order.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to remove over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion for further disclosure, including documentation of the removal, the subsequent care of the dogs, and the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) used for the search warrants.

The respondent refused, arguing the information was irrelevant.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested disclosure was relevant to whether the removal was lawful and necessary for a full understanding of the issues.

The appellants appealed the removal of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business properties by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed following non-compliance with previous orders regarding tether lengths and dog house conditions.

The Board found that while some puppies were not in distress and must be returned immediately, the majority of the dogs were in distress due to inadequate tether lengths, lack of insulation, and poor state of repair of their shelters.

The Board ordered the return of the remaining dogs subject to the appellants achieving compliance with specific standards of care, including three-metre tethers and insulated dog houses.

The appellant appealed a statement of account for $8,271.73 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the boarding and veterinary care of her cat, which had been removed to relieve its distress.

The appellant argued the costs were too high and that she could not afford them.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary and boarding costs were reasonable and medically necessary, supported by unchallenged veterinary testimony.

The Board confirmed the statement of account, finding the appellant responsible for the costs and noting she provided no evidence of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed the removal of nine horses from her property by Animal Welfare Services and the associated statements of account.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in distress due to lack of proper care, food, and shelter, and that their removal was warranted under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board declined to order the return of the remaining horses because the appellant had not fully complied with a prior compliance order and the horses were still receiving treatment.

The Board varied the first statement of account to $13,284.35 and confirmed the second statement of account at $11,587.21.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her cat was removed by Animal Welfare Services due to severe distress.

The appellant did not dispute the removal but argued she could not afford the $2,825.07 bill due to financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary costs and initial intensive boarding costs reasonable.

However, the Board found it unreasonable for the respondent to continue incurring standard boarding costs after the cat was no longer in distress, especially while refusing to offer a payment plan to the appellant.

The Statement of Account was varied to $2,300.07.

The appellant appealed the removal of her cat by Animal Welfare Services.

The cat had an advanced sarcoma on its foot, which was necrotic and discharging.

The appellant had refused amputation or euthanasia, opting for palliative care with leftover medication.

The Board found that the cat was in distress at the time of removal and that the inspector had the authority to remove it based on a veterinarian's certificate.

Although the cat's leg was subsequently amputated, the Board found it was still in distress due to the need for ongoing post-operative care.

The Board declined to return the cat to the appellant, finding she was unable to adequately provide the necessary care.

The appellant appealed a second Statement of Account issued for the continued care of her 33 dogs, which had been previously removed and forfeited.

The Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The appellant's submissions focused on re-litigating the previous removal order, seeking the return of her dogs, and complaining about an earlier Criminal Code charge.

The Board dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding it frivolous, outside the Board's jurisdiction, and failing to meet the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal.

The appellants appealed the removal of 17 pigs from their property by Animal Welfare Services and the associated statements of account for boarding and care.

The animals were removed after inspectors found them to be in distress due to inadequate access to clean water, poor housing conditions, and untreated medical issues, and following the appellants' failure to comply with previous compliance orders.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal was warranted under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, as the animals were in distress and the appellants had not complied with outstanding orders.

The Board confirmed the statements of account, finding the costs reasonable, and dismissed the appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board considered requests for reconsideration from both the appellants and the respondent regarding a previous decision concerning the care of sled dogs.

The respondent sought to reinstate original compliance dates, arguing the Board erred by extending them without reasons or evidence.

The appellants argued the Board incorrectly interpreted the requirement in Regulation 444/19 that outdoor dogs must have a chain at least 3 meters long.

The Board dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness that would warrant reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered her horse not be returned to her.

She argued the Board committed jurisdictional and procedural fairness errors, made errors of fact and law, and heard false evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness in denying adjournments, correctly placing the burden of proof on the appellant for a section 38(1) appeal, and noting that no written application under section 38(3) was before the Board.

The allegations of false evidence were also dismissed as they pertained to closing submissions, not witness testimony.

The appellant appealed the removal of seven horses from her property by Animal Welfare Services and disputed the associated statements of account.

The horses were removed after the appellant failed to comply with multiple compliance orders regarding inadequate shelter, hoof care, and veterinary treatment for horses suffering from heaves and Cushing's disease.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in ongoing distress and that the removal was warranted and conducted properly under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The appeal was dismissed, the removal order was upheld, and the statements of account were confirmed.