Date: 2021-09-13

Appeal under sub-section 38(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019. R.S.O. 2019, c.13

Between:

Colleen Hobson and John Rodrigues Appellants

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Harriet Lewis, Member

Appearances: For the Appellant: Colleen Hobson, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Craig McManus, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services

Held by videoconference: June 30, 2021

OVERVIEW

1Colleen Hobson and John Rodrigues (“appellants”) appealed the removal of 17 pigs from their rural property by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) on May 28, 2021 and the statements of account arising from their removal. Following the removal, they also appealed a compliance order issued on June 1, 2021 which required them to provide clean bedding for the pigs and to treat the animals with medications for parasite control.

2These were not the first compliance orders issued to the appellants. Several were issued over the past year. The first order, issued on September 21, 2020 required the appellants, among other things, to provide all animals on their premises at that time with access to “clean, potable water in spill-proof containers at all times”. That order applied to a donkey, some poultry, and ten pigs. At the date of the removal of the appellants’ 17 pigs on May 28, 2021, the donkey and poultry were no longer on the appellants’ premises and are not a subject of this appeal. The order with respect to water remains a central issue.

3On May 12, 2021, the appellants were issued with an order requiring that one of their boars, Casanova, be seen by a veterinarian and that any treatment recommendations be followed.

4On May 28, 2021, Casanova was humanely euthanized by a veterinarian under the directions of the AWS. That matter is not appealable to the Board.

5As at the date of hearing, the June 1, 2021 compliance order concerning clean bedding and medication had been revoked by AWS. The long-standing, September 21, 2020, order for access to clean, potable water has finally been complied with. The pigs were returned to the appellants on June 9, 2021.

6Prior to the return of the pigs, the appellants paid an AWS statement of account in the amount of $2,428.23. That account was for the removal, boarding, and care of 17 pigs from May 28 to June 3, 2021. On June 10, 2021, after the pigs return, AWS issued a second and final statement of account in the amount of $1,267.86 for boarding fees incurred during the previously un-billed period of June 3 through June 8, 2021.

7The only issues remaining for adjudication in this appeal concern the two statements of account issued by AWS, and the obligation of the appellants to pay them. The appellants have asserted that the removal of the pigs was not warranted and therefore the accounts are not proper. They have asked the Board to revoke the accounts and order the reimbursement of monies already paid.

ISSUES

8The issues before the Tribunal to be determined at the hearing were:

1. Was the removal of the pigs warranted pursuant to s. 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act (“Act”) and therefore were the two statement of account properly issued?

2. Should the statements of account be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

3. Should the appellants be reimbursed for the amount paid for the return of the animals?

RESULT

9For the reasons set out below, I find that the removal was warranted and confirm the statements of account as issued.

LEGAL CONTEXT

10The Act gives substantial authority to appointed inspectors in respect to animals in distress. The focus of the Act is on ensuring the welfare of animals, rather than the needs or wishes of their owners. Section 1(1) of the Act defines “distress” as “a state of being” when an animal is:

1. In need of proper care, water, food, or shelter,

2. Injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or

3. Abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation, or neglect.

11Section 31(1) authorizes an inspector to 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 in certain circumstances including “if an order respecting an animal has been made under section 30 and the order has not been complied with”.

12If an animal is removed for distress, the owner of an animal is responsible for its expenses. Section 35(1) specifies that if an animal has been taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care and provided with necessaries, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may serve the owner of the animal with a statement of account respecting the cost of the necessaries.

13Section 38(1) provides a right of appeal of a decision for removal by an animal welfare inspector and s.38 (2) allows an appeal of a statement of account.

14Section 38(9) gives this Board authority after a hearing to confirm, revoke or vary a statement of account.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

15AWS Inspectors Alison Green and Stefanie Mayrl testified on behalf of the respondent. Written reports from David Kirkham, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (“DVM”) of Cheltenham Veterinary Centre, Mike DeGroot, DVM of DeGroot Veterinary Corporation, and Mandy Muldur, DVM of Dufferin Veterinary Services were admitted into evidence as exhibits.

16Dr. Muldur and Ms. Hobson testified on behalf of the appellants.

The Respondent’s Evidence Concerning the Removal of the Pigs

17Inspector Alison Green was the first and main person from AWS to be involved with the appellants. She has been with AWS since April 2020 and is an experienced animal welfare inspector. From 2004 until 2019 she was an Inspector with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, (“OSPCA”), and for her last 5 years at OSPCA she held the rank of Senior Inspector. Her detailed duty notes, in both original and transcribed form, record her interactions with the appellants and their animals and were entered as exhibits in this proceeding.

18Inspector Green attended at the appellants’ farm premises located outside of Toronto (“premises”) for the first time on September 20, 2020, in response to an unsolicited telephone call. The caller had expressed concern that there were birds, a donkey, and some pigs being kept on uninhabited premises, without shelter, food, or water. When Inspector Green arrived at the premises, she found that they were secured by a locked gate. She posted a “while you were out” notice asking the owner to contact her.

19The following day Inspector Green received a phone call from the appellant Mr. Rodrigues who told her that he was keeping animals on the premises for personal consumption, that he had plans to prepare the facilities for the winter, and that he was looking for some guidance on the animals’ care. Inspector Green and Mr. Rodrigues made plans to meet on site on September 21, 2020.

20Both Mr. Rodrigues and Ms. Hobson met with Inspector Green on September 21, 2020.

21Inspector Green inspected the facilities after obtaining the appellants consent to do so. She recalled that at that time there were 10 pigs, some chickens and ducks, and a donkey being kept there. She noted that in the animals’ enclosures there were some rough and incomplete shelters made of wooden pallets, that parts of the enclosures were very wet, that there was no hay for the donkey, and there was no drinking water for the animals, except in one of the pig pens. She understood from the appellants that there was no source of drinkable water on the premises. She saw some of the pigs fighting over vegetable and fruit scraps in containers on the ground which were provided for feed.

22Inspector Green issued two compliance orders on that date: one for the care and feeding of the donkey and one covering all of the animals, specifying that “clean potable water shall be provided in spill proof containers at all times”. The compliance date for the order concerning the water was September 30, 2020. Neither of the orders issued at that time were appealed.

23Throughout the winter and spring of 2020/2021 Inspector Green continued her involvement with the appellants and their animals through a dozen meetings at the premises and approximately thirty telephone calls and emails. Most of that contact was with Mr. Rodrigues but occasionally she met on site with both appellants.

24According to Inspector Green’s evidence, through most of the autumn and early winter of 2020, Mr. Rodrigues sought information and advice from her concerning the proper housing and management of the animals and specifically the pigs.

25On December 16, 2020, because of her ongoing concern about the pigs’ care, Inspector Green emailed Mr. Rodrigues attaching a copy of a document she referred to as the “pig code of practice”. Because continuous access to water remained an issue, Inspector Green noted particularly, the section referring to the necessity for “continuous access to palatable water”, but the document also referred to appropriate housing, bedding and other matters.

26Inspector Green’s testimony indicated that over the fall of 2020 and the early winter of 2021, the appellants made some, albeit slow, progress toward providing suitable shelter for the pigs. They were moved from their original location to higher, drier ground. They were eventually housed in 4 new pens. Bedding was provided in bales at the premises for distribution among the pens. Mr. Rodrigues indicated to Inspector Green that the appellants’ plans had shifted from personal consumption to operating a commercial piggery. The pigs were going to be bred and Mr. Rodrigues was advised by Inspector Green about the need for a farrowing pen for the sows and the piglets born on site. The issues with proper housing, sufficient clean water, appropriate food, dirty or wet pens and sufficient dry bedding persisted despite the outstanding compliance order, repeated advice, and, according to Inspector Green, her warning that she might undertake an inspection without notice and instigate removal and/or charges under the Act.

27Inspector Green suggested that the appellants retain the services of a veterinarian to oversee their husbandry and attend to needs as they might arise, but she said the appellants resisted doing so. According to her testimony, Inspector Green eventually retained Dr. David Kirkham, DVM of Cheltenham Veterinary Centre through AWS. Dr. Kirkham attended at the premises on April 14, 2021 and inspected the animals and their living conditions in the company of Inspector Green, AWS Senior Investigator Alison Crocker, and both of the appellants.

28Although Dr. Kirkham did not testify, his letter report dated April 14, 2021, was filed as an exhibit with the hearing materials. In that report, among other things, he addressed concerns about reproductive planning, new-born management, better access to food, and water management. He noted that at the time of his attendance, the water stations then provided in the pens contained water but were difficult to keep clean. He recommended isolating the ailing boar, Casanova, who had been housed with the sows. Lastly Dr. Kirkham recommended that the appellants “establish a relationship with a local veterinarian to oversee the operation and provide insight and instructions where needed”.

29On April 20, 2021, Inspector Green conveyed Dr. Kirkham’s observations and recommendations to the appellants by e-mail. Despite some of her ongoing concerns, because of Dr. Kirkham’s assessments, she decided to revoke some of the outstanding orders that she had made over time, specifically those concerning proper shelters, plastics in food, separation of feeding and toilet areas, and sufficient straw bedding. However, she recalled that she emphasized to the appellants that notwithstanding the revocation of these orders, the order for continuous access to potable water remained in effect.

30Following Dr. Kirkham’s report, events accelerated, leading up to the removal of 17 of the (then 22) pigs on May 28, 2021. Inspector Green recalled that on May 12, 2021, she went to the premises to check on Casanova who had been isolated as recommended, but whose condition was poor. On seeing that his condition was deteriorating, Inspector Green decided to issue an order pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Act that Casanova be seen by a veterinarian and that the veterinarian’s instructions be followed.

31Inspector Green acknowledged that the appellants complied with that order in part by retaining Dr. Muldur to assess Casanova’s condition. Following Dr. Muldur’s assessment, Inspector Green received a report from Dr. Muldur by email on May 17, 2021, which stated that Dr. Muldur had found Casanova to be in very poor condition which required that action be taken, and that the appellants had assured her that they were going to have Casanova sent for slaughter by May 25, 2021. Dr. Mulder’s report also said that if the appellants failed to do so by that date, Dr. Muldur would re-evaluate Casanova’s condition “to consider the welfare implications of prolonging the time to slaughter any further”. As noted above, a copy of the report from Dr. Muldur to Inspector Green was filed as an exhibit with the respondent’s materials.

32Because of her ongoing concern about Casanova and the circumstances of the other pigs, Inspector Green attended at the premises, on May 27, 2021, with AWS Inspector Rachael Falls, without notice to the appellants. The gate was open, but no one was on site. Briefly put, she said that she found the following:

1Pen 1: no food present, water green with algae

2Pen 2: no food or water

3Pen 3: dirty water, no straw bedding

4Pen 4: Casanova still present and in deteriorated condition, no food, water was yellow, poor bedding

33Inspector Green returned the following day, May 28, 2021, with Inspector Stefanie Mayrl and Dr. Mike DeGroot, a veterinarian recommended to her by Ontario Pork. Dr. DeGroot examined Casanova and determined that the boar was in poor body condition with a poor prognosis for recovery. He advised that the most humane course of action was that Casanova be immediately euthanized. Dr. DeGroot attended to the euthanasia at the site and issued a certificate which Inspector Green sent to the appellants.

34Inspector Green observed that the conditions in the other pens remained as on the previous day. In addition to the presence of dirty water, or absence of water in the troughs, some of the animals had neither food nor proper bedding. There was a bale of bedding material near the pens but it had not been distributed. One sow had a noticeably arched spine, which she said was a sign that it was in pain. Other pigs had hair loss and one had a sore leg. These observations were confirmed by the report by Dr. DeGroot dated June 2, 2021 and filed as an exhibit with the respondent’s documents.

35Inspector Green illustrated the state of the animals and the facilities by a series of 28 photographs that she took on May 28, 2021, which were entered as exhibits. They included pictures showing the condition of Casanova, another pig with a sore leg and one with an arched spine, the inside of a shelter with scarce bedding, empty food troughs, food containing plastic, and a number of water troughs with little or no water and dirt and algae in the troughs.

36Inspector Green was cross-examined in some detail on what she observed in several of the pictures. She acknowledged that some pictures illustrated that there was a little bit of water in some troughs but observed that both the water and containers were dirty, and she considered the water to be unsuitable for the pigs to drink.

37On May 28, 2021, Inspector Green determined that the pigs were in distress and should be removed. She arranged for their transport. She stated that the trailer that arrived to remove the pigs had 3 compartments. The loading began with the sow and her piglets and the 2 male pigs that were housed in their own pen. Initially all these pigs were placed in the same compartment. However, when the 2 males were put together with the sow, one of the males attacked her. Consequently, the 2 males were moved to the middle compartment. After loading the next pen it became clear that the third compartment was not large enough to take all of the remaining pigs, so the decision was made to take the pigs that had been loaded, but to leave behind the 4 sows that were housed together in the same pen but which had not yet been loaded. By the time this was done it was early evening. Before the inspectors left, they ensured that the remaining pigs were given extra bedding straw and fresh water for overnight.

38Inspector Mayrl had accompanied Inspector Green to the premises on May 28, 2021 and her testimony confirmed that of Inspector Green about the condition of the pigs and the premises on that day. She said that when she saw Casanova, it was clear that his condition was poor. He was shivering, his pen was wet, and he was unable to bear weight on one leg. His water container was dirty and contained green residue. Another pen housed several pigs including a boar with a leg laceration and a sow with a hunched back, which she also identified as a symptom of distress due to pain. The water container in that pen also contained green algae. The next pen held 4 sows, one of which had substantial hair loss. That pen was very muddy and mucky, and there was no food to be seen. Although she notes that there was a bale of straw on the premises, it had not been scattered to provide sufficient bedding in that pen. The metal water trough that was there appeared to have algae growing in it. The next two pens appeared to have some water and bedding.

39Inspector Mayrl testified that in her experience, slimy green material in water troughs is evidence that they have not been cleaned for a long time. It was her observation that on May 28, 2021, the water that was in the water troughs was shallow, murky and dirty; the pens were wet, and there was insufficient bedding in some of the pens for the pigs to rest comfortably.

40Her evidence on the process of loading of the pigs for removal confirmed that of Inspector Green.

The Appellants’ Evidence

41Dr. Muldur obtained her DVM from Guelph University in 2009 and has been with Dufferin Veterinary Services since 2019. Her current practice is focussed on large animals in farm settings. She provided evidence on behalf of the appellants.

42She was retained by the appellants following Inspector Green’s order and attended at the premises with the appellants on May 17, 2021 exclusively for the purpose of examining the boar Casanova. However, when she testified, she was asked by Ms. Hobson to provide her observations and opinions about the water in the troughs in the pig pens.

43Dr. Muldur noted that she had observed that there was some water present in the pens in steel troughs which she believed were designed to be used for feed. She acknowledged that good pig practice requires that animals always have access to clean water and that they should be checked at least once and preferably twice a day. She said that when she was on site, she noted that there was algae on the containers and sediment in the bottom of the water, but it did not cause her concern.

44She acknowledged that it is not fair to “pass judgement” on what she called a “snapshot in time”, but in her opinion, on the day she was on site, the animals did not appear distressed or dehydrated, and the conditions on the premises were no worse than, or possibly better than, conditions she had observed at some other similar operations.

45Dr. Muldur said that she had had some concern with the quality of the pigs’ food, particularly for lactating sows. She noted some wood debris in the pigs’ food, and poor manure management, but had been instructed by the appellants at the time to restrict her attention to Casanova. She was concerned with Casanova’s condition which said was very poor. She followed up her attendance on site with a letter dated the same day to Inspector Green, indicating that the appellants had assured her of their intention to have Casanova slaughtered on May 25, 2021.

46On June 3, 2021, following the removal of the pigs, Dr. Muldur had called Inspector Green and questioned her on the standard Inspector Green had relied on for what water was suitable : “potable” as Inspector Green had said, or “palatable” as was described in the code of pig practice. In Dr. Muldur’s view, water that might appear to be unpalatable or unpotable for other animals may be suitable for pigs which root in dirt for pleasure. It was Dr. Muldur’s view that AWS and Inspector Green should be able to explain a standard by which their decisions about suitable water are made.

47Ms. Hobson testified on behalf of herself and her husband, Mr. Rodrigues. She is a chartered accountant by profession, with her own practice. She and Mr. Rodrigues have owned the premises for twelve years. In about March of 2020, they decided they wanted to have “a pig operation” and raise Berkshire pigs. The family income has largely been from her accounting practice, but their intention is to make the farm a more prominent part of their livelihood within 3 to 5 years.

48They had put a plan in place to raise Berkshire pigs, but their progress had been by trial and error. She said that she and Mr. Rodrigues had substantial knowledge about farming from growing up in farming areas and from spending time with relatives that farm and denied that they had learned anything about pig husbandry from their interactions with Inspector Green.

49She stated that in her opinion she and Mr. Rodrigues had complied with the water requirements of the pig code of practice by bringing water from the city to the farm, and had therefore complied with the order given by Inspector Green in September 2020. In the alternative she said that she and Mr. Rodrigues had not received sufficient direction from Inspector Green as to what was required to comply with the order for water nor had they clear information about what type of improved system was required.

50She confirmed that the water for the pigs was brought by Mr. Rodrigues from their home in Toronto in large plastic water-cooler type containers, which were tipped over to release water into the troughs.

51She believes that she and Mr. Rodrigues had “jumped through hoops” to meet Inspector Green’s requirements. For example, they had switched from white plastic “food grade” containers for water to stainless steel ones which were secured to a base so they would not spill. She maintained that the access to water in troughs was a secondary source of water for the animals because their main food was fresh fruit and vegetables which they obtained from fruit and vegetable processing facilities. In her view, the water in the food and the water brought from the city, supplied sufficient water for the pigs. She noted that the pigs urinated substantially and regularly and did not appear to be dehydrated.

52In support of her testimony about the amount and quality of water available for the pigs on May 28, 2021, she presented in evidence a number of photographs which she said were taken by her son on May 29, 2021, the day after the 17 pigs had been removed. Several pictures were almost identical to some of those taken by Inspector Green and which were referred to in her cross examination. Ms. Hobson agreed that some of the photographs indicated the presence of dirty sediment in the drinking part of the trough. She attributed the dirt to the inevitable dirt on the pigs’ snouts from their rooting in the mud. She admitted that some of the pictures showed low water or no water in the clear plastic containers or only an inch or two of water in some of the troughs. She acknowledged that several pictures clearly showed a green substance in or around the water in the troughs.

53Ms. Hobson maintained that the steel water troughs were frequently removed and replaced, and dirty troughs were taken to their city home by Mr. Rodrigues twice a week to be washed.

54Ms. Hobson also admitted that Casanova was “a mess” but explained that the failure to send him to slaughter on May 25, 2021, was a mistake as to the date of her commitment to Dr. Muldur. Her evidence was that she and Mr. Rodrigues thought they had committed to do so by “the end of the month”, specifically by May 31, 2021.

55Ms. Hobson stated on more than one occasion in her testimony that Mr. Rodrigues attended the premises “regularly” to take care of the pigs. On cross examination, she admitted that regularly did not mean every day, and that on occasion he misses a day. Ms. Hobson estimated that she visits the premises 2 to 3 times a month and admitted that she generally relies on Mr. Rodrigues’ reports on the animals for information. Neither she nor Mr. Rodrigues attended at the premises on the day the pigs were removed.

Analysis and Findings

56Inspector Green’s testimony and notes were very detailed and with one exception, the appellants did not dispute the facts as Inspector Green related them. Contrary to Inspector Green’s evidence, the appellants maintain that they have always provided sufficient water for the pigs. Consequently they claim that access to suitable water was satisfactory at the time of their removal, and/or that the state of the water supply and the general circumstances of the pigs were not sufficient grounds to conclude that the pigs were in distress and warrant their removal.

57In their argument, the appellants expressed concern about the fact that of the twenty-one (living) pigs on the premises at the time of removal, only seventeen had been taken. They expressed their surprise that the 4 sows left on the premises were not removed. They argued that the 4 pigs left behind were the least healthy and least valuable of their pigs. Having heard the evidence of Inspector Green and Inspector Mayrl about the removal, I prefer their evidence to the speculation of the appellants as to the reason the 4 pigs were left behind.

58The appellants argued, with the support of Dr. Muldur’s testimony, that they provided suitable water to the pigs, at least on the date of removal, and therefore they were in compliance with the first order made by Inspector Green in September 2020. That order was never appealed. Notwithstanding, they argued that there is an important distinction between the word “potable” used by Inspector Green in her order of September 20, 2021, and the word “palatable” used in the pig code of practice. Despite arguing that the meanings of potable and palatable were significantly different, the appellants provided no dictionary definitions of either word, or did they otherwise explain how their supposed different meanings are material in the context of this matter. Although each of Dr. Muldur and Inspector Green took positions on the differences, I do not find the distinction between the two words relevant in this case. Taken at its most basic, the order was for the animals to have access “at all times” to “clean” water, and it was clear on the evidence that they did not.

59The evidence concerning the shortage and nature of the water Inspector Green found on her many visits over time and on the date of their removal was substantiated by the comments made by Dr. Kirkham’s reference to water management in his report, and the evidence of Inspector Mayrl and Dr. DeGroot that neither the water nor the water containers were clean on May 28, 2021 when they attended.

60I do not find Ms. Hobson’s evidence of the twice-weekly switching and washing of the containers credible. The presence of an accumulation of a green algae-like substance was clearly visible in the water photographs of the water troughs supplied by both parties.

61Given the evidence of Inspector Green, Inspector Mayrl and Drs. Kirkham, DeGroot and Muldur, I am persuaded that there were several issues of concern that persisted over time and from time to time and which also existed on the date of the pigs’ removal and which circumstances made it reasonable for Inspector Green to determine that the animals were in distress as defined in the Act. These included not only the inconsistent presence and the provision of poor quality of water but also poor manure management, insufficient bedding, a shortage or inadequacy of food, and absence of veterinary care.

62I prefer the evidence of Dr. Muldur to that of Ms. Hobson that the date set for Casanova’s slaughter was May 25, 2021 and not “the end of the month’ as Ms. Hobson stated in her testimony.

63Given that, I find that the appellants did not honour the assurance given to Dr. Muldur and conveyed in writing to Inspector Green, that Casanova would be sent to slaughter on May 25. The failure to attend to Casanova left him in deteriorating condition, subject to undue physical hardship and neglect, and in a state of distress that led to him being euthanized.

64I also find that on the date of removal there were observable medical issues with respect to some of the other pigs. On that date, Inspectors Green, Mayrl and Dr. DeGroot noted that they observed one pig who was in apparent pain, and others with poor skin condition and hair loss. Dr. DeGroot noted the latter of which is a probable sign of parasitic infection.

65Based on the foregoing, I am persuaded that the animals were removed both because of outstanding orders which had not been complied with and because they were found to be in distress and in need of proper care, water, food, or shelter. Some were injured, sick, in pain or suffering.

66On June 1, following the animals’ removal, Inspector Green issued a further order respect to the treatment of the pigs with medication for parasites as well as an order requiring better bedding.

67Those orders were complied with and removed before the return of the 17 pigs on June 9, 2021.

68By that date the appellants had also purchased and installed a “cup and bowl” water distribution system with a large water tank, a method which AWS found to be an appropriate way of providing animals with continuous access to clean water.

Should the statements of account be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

69As noted at the outset, there have been two accounts issued to the appellants: one for $2428.23 for the transportation and veterinary and boarding costs from May 28 to June 3, 2021 (the June 3 SOA). That account was paid by Ms. Hobson prior to the return of the pigs to the premises on June 9, 2021. A second account, for $1267.86, was issued on June 10, 2021 for boarding the pigs from June 3 through June 8, 2021 (the June 10 SOA).

70I find these costs to be reasonable in the circumstances and that the accounts have been properly issued. The appellants have the onus to show that the Statement of Account should be varied; however, I heard no evidence concerning any individual item in either of the accounts which would lead to my varying them.

71In their argument the appellants as this Board to order the Minister to reimburse them the costs of complying with the orders, for the loss of the value of Casanova’s meat as well as the costs of removal and boarding. The only order appealed by the appellants was the removal order. No particulars of any other costs were stated in the appeal documents nor provided at the hearing. I can find no basis for ordering the Minister to reimburse any costs paid by the appellants for complying with any of the AWS orders.

ORDER

72For the reasons set out above, the Board orders that:

1. The statements of account issued on June 3 and June 10, 2021 are confirmed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.