Thomas Pryde, Adrienne Spottiswood & Georgeina Pierce v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 CanLII 141545

Date: 2021-11-16

Appeals under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019

Between:

Thomas Pryde, Adrienne Spottiswood & Georgeina Pierce Appellants

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

MOTION DECISION & ORDER (ITOs)

Adjudicator: Lindsay Lake, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Eric Gillespie, Counsel; John May, Counsel; Yasmeen Peer, Counsel For the Respondent: Jason Kirsh, Counsel; Deanna Exner, Counsel; Padraic Ryan, Counsel; Waleed Malik, Counsel

Court Reporter: Barbara Pollard

Heard by videoconference: November 15, 2021

Overview

1The appellants run a dog sledding and horse-riding business out of two locations in Ontario. One is in Oro-Medonte (“Moonstone”) and the other is in the Township of Severn (“Severn”).

2On September 23, 2021, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (the “CAWI”), the respondent, removed all of the appellants’ dogs from both of the appellants’ properties pursuant to s. 31(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (the “Act”).¹ Over 200 dogs were removed in total. The respondent subsequently decided to keep all of the dogs in its care pursuant to s.31(6) of the Act. The appellants have appealed the respondent’s removal orders and decision to keep the dogs in its care.

3On November 7, 2021, the appellants filed a notice of motion for a return of the dogs. Specifically, the appellants sought an order from the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”) directing that the dogs be returned pursuant to s. 38(9) of the Act or, in the alternative, an interim stay prohibiting the respondent to continue to give effect to the removal orders. The appellants alleged that the Information to Obtain (“ITOs”) the search warrants executed at the Moonstone and Severn properties by the respondent on September 23, 2021 that led to removal, and subsequent decision to keep the dogs, were misleading, inaccurate and/or failed to provide necessary information such that the warrants themselves are invalid, thereby rendering the removal and decision to keep invalid.

4The respondent opposed the appellants’ motion. The motion was argued before me at the hearing of this matter on November 15, 2021.

Result

5The appellants’ motion is denied in its entirety.

6I agree with the respondent that the appellants’ motion is a collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice. The search warrants were issued by the Ontario Court of Justice and, therefore, they can only be challenged in the forum in which they were issued, using the procedures available in that forum.² It is not for this Board to question the basis upon which the warrants were issued.

Order

7For the reasons set out above, the appellants’ motion is denied.

Footnotes

1. 1S.O. 2019, c. 13.
2. 2Young v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2018 HRTO 216 at para. 15.