Tribunals Ontario
Animal Care Review Board
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Commission D’étude Des Soins Aux Animaux
Appeal under subsection 38(2) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 R.S.O. 2019, c. 13
Between:
David Romkes
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Helen Karpouzos, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Michael Draper
Heard by teleconference: January 8, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
The Appellant, David Romkes, appeals the Statement of Account issued to him on December 9, 2020, by Animal Welfare Inspector Christopher Chew (the “Inspector”) pursuant to section 35(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act (the “Act”)1.
On October 2, 2020, the Respondent removed the Appellant’s two horses, Hope and Royalty. The horses were taken to Whispering Hearts Horse Rescue (“Whispering Hearts”), which is a critical care facility that rehabilitates horses in need.
On January 4, 2021, the Inspector attended the Appellant’s property for inspection to ensure it is suitable for the return of the horses. Further compliance orders were issued at that time. Those compliance orders are not the subject of this appeal.
On January 8, 2021, the hearing commenced by teleconference. At the time of the hearing, the horses remained in the custody of the Respondent, with costs accruing. Hope was medically cleared for release on December 7, 2020, and Royalty was cleared on December 29, 2020. The parties presented evidence and made submissions.
The Respondent submitted a detailed invoice from Whispering Hearts, dated January 7, 2021, that provided a breakdown of the costs associated with boarding each horse. The Respondent also relied on a number of other invoices it received for the cost of care of the horses, including veterinary care and farrier services.
As of December 9, 2020, the Appellant owed $5,132.26 for the care of both horses. As of the date of the hearing, that amount had increased to $6,960.13.
The Appellant did not dispute the amounts set out in the invoices presented by the Respondent. The Appellant’s primary objection to the Statement of Account was that he believed the costs he was incurring for Hope should have been suspended on October 19, 2020. The Appellant submitted that Hope was healthy enough at that time to be returned to him and therefore, he should not be liable for the costs subsequent to that date.
The issues to be decided by the Board are:
a. Is the Appellant liable for the costs of Hope’s care after October 19, 2020? and
b. Should the Statement of Account should be confirmed, revoked, or varied?
RESULT
- For the reasons that follow, the Board is satisfied that the costs incurred by the Respondent are reasonable and confirms the Statement of Account dated December 9, 2020.
POWERS OF THE BOARD
An owner or custodian of an animal served with a Statement of Account may apply to the Board to appeal the Statement of Account pursuant to s. 38(2) of the Act.
Pursuant to s. 38(9) of the Act, after a hearing, the Board may do one or more of the following:
a. Confirm, revoke or vary a statement of account served under subsection 35 (1);
b. 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 section 30 be paid by the Minister to the owner or custodian;
c. Order that the whole or any part of the cost to the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector of providing necessaries to an animal pursuant to its removal under subsection 31 (1) or (2) or the determination to keep an animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 31 (6) or 44 (8) be paid by the owner or custodian of the animal to the Minister of Finance.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
i. Is the Appellant liable for costs relating to Hope subsequent to October 19, 2020?
The Appellant did not dispute that Hope and Royalty were lawfully removed, nor did he dispute the costs of care for both horses. The issue in dispute was the length of time costs accrued for Hope’s care.
The Appellant submitted that the Respondent is purposefully delaying the return of his horses to him. In support of his belief, the Appellant testified that Hope was healthy enough to be returned to him on or shortly after October 19, 2020, when an invoice from Whispering Hearts revealed that her body score had improved from the time of removal. The Appellant submitted that this improvement eliminated the necessity for her continued rehabilitative care at Whispering Hearts.
The Appellant further submitted that he can pay $4000.00 immediately, and requested that a payment plan be implemented for the remaining balance.
The Respondent disputed the Appellant’s claim that Hope could have been returned to the Appellant prior to the veterinarian’s clearance on December 7, 2020. Both horses were examined by the veterinarian on October 5, 2020, when an initial assessment was made. The veterinarian completed a re-check on October 22, 2020 and noted progress in the condition of both horses. There was no evidence of another examination until December 7, 2020. The owner of Whispering Hearts testified that a veterinarian checks all of the horses on the property between one and three times per week. However, those checks are not typically documented.
The Respondent did not provide any evidence to explain why it took more than a month for a veterinarian to re-assess the horses in any detail to determine their suitability for release. The evidence suggests that Hope was in better health than Royalty at the time of the removal and had improved by October 22, 2020. However, the Appellant’s submissions regarding Hope’s health were too speculative to conclude that Hope’s health had improved enough to be released to the Appellant prior to the veterinarian’s December 7, 2020 clearance. He relied on a notation from the October 19, 2020 invoice from Whispering Hearts about the improvement in her body score, but admitted under cross examination that a horse’s body score is not determinative of overall health.
After Hope was cleared for return to the Appellant on December 7, 2020, the Respondent took two days to issue the Statement of Account. I find this time-frame reasonable to gather the invoices for costs and calculate the appropriate amount owed by the Appellant.
ii. Should the Statement of Account be Confirmed, Revoked, or Varied?
- Based on the evidence before me, and the submissions of the parties, I find the Statement of Account, on its face, to be reasonable. Given my finding that the Appellant is liable for the costs of care for Hope and Royalty up to December 7, 2020, I confirm the Statement of Account dated December 9, 2020.
CONCLUSION
- The Board confirms the Statement of Account dated December 9, 2020.
ORDER
- Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s.38 of the Act, the Board orders that the Appellant shall pay to the Respondent $5,132.26. I understand that costs have continued to accrue since December 9, 2020 and those costs may be payable by the Appellant prior to the return of Hope and Royalty. However, as it relates to the Statement of Account that is the subject of this appeal, the Board orders that the Appellant shall pay $4000.00 for the immediate return of Hope and Royalty, and the remaining balance within 90 days of the release of this Order.
Released: February 2, 2021
_________________________
Helen Karpouzos, Member
Footnotes
- 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13