Suzanne McGreal v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 ONACRB 23

Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’Étude des Soins aux Animaux

Date: 2021-10-14

Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, R.S.O. 2019, c. 13

Between:

Suzanne McGreal

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Susan Clarke, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-represented

For the Respondent: Craig McManus, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services

Held by teleconference: September 21, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW

1Suzanne McGreal (the “appellant”) is appealing the removal of nine horses from her property at 1908 Concession Road 3, in the Town of Brechin, Ontario on July 12, 2021 by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) and seeks their return.

2The appellant is also appealing the statement of account (the “SOA”) issued on July 27, 2021 arising from their removal. She has paid a large part of the SOA.

3On agreement of the parties during the hearing, a second SOA issued on September 9, 2021, and appealed to the Board, will be added to the hearing of this appeal.

B. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

4At the outset of the hearing, I noted that a preliminary issue had been identified in the case conference report (September 3, 2021) by Mr. McManus regarding whether the appeal had been filed in time. I advised him that the Notice of Appeal document was an administrative tool and while it was submitted after the deadline, I had been advised by the case management officer that the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”) had received notification of the appellant’s intent to appeal within the prescribed timelines, and worked with the appellant to complete the document. Mr. McManus accepted the explanation and withdrew the issue.

5I noted that a second Statement of Account had been issued on September 9, 2021 and asked the parties if they wished to have it included in the proceedings, to which they agreed.

C. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

6The issues to be decided by Board are as follows:

1. Were the horses in distress at the time of their Removal on July 12, 2021?
2. Was the removal of the horses warranted pursuant to s. 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act (the “Act”)?
3. Has the owner complied with the Compliance Order?
4. Should the animals be returned to the owner?
5. Should the statement of accounts dated July 27 and September 9, 2021, be confirmed, revoked or varied?

D. RESULT

7For the reasons that follow, I find that the horses were in distress at the time of their removal on July 12, 2021, and their removal was warranted under the Act. I make no order for the return of the horses at this time because the appellant has not fully complied with the Compliance Order issued by AWS, and the horses are still being treated for distress. The statement of account issued July 27, 2021 is varied to $13,284.35 as agreed by the parties and has been paid in full. The second statement of account issued September 9, 2021 for $11,587.21 is confirmed.

E. THE ORDERS

8On June 28, 2021, AWS issued a compliance order (the “Compliance Order”). The Compliance Order is not under appeal but is relevant for the subsequent removal of the animals. The Compliance Order required the following:

• Have the animals examined by a veterinarian with special attention to general physical exam – all health body condition, hooves
  • Provide the animal welfare inspector with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the examination findings, and the treatments recommended and undertaken
  • Follow treatment recommendations of vet consulted
• Compliance date: July 8, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
• All horse’s hooves must be trimmed to adequate and appropriate length and shape. Compliance date: July 8, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
• All stalls must be cleaned out fully and adequate dry bedding must be provided. Compliance date: July 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
• All horses must be turned out daily for an appropriate and adequate amount of exercise. Compliance date: June 29, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.

9On July 12, 2021 AWS brought Dr. Bruce Robertson, a veterinarian, to the appellant’s property to conduct a herd assessment. Dr. Robertson examined the nine horses and reviewed the living conditions. He issued a certificate of veterinarian (the “Certificate of a Veterinarian”) relating to “9 horses of varying age, sex and breed – Redford, Cashmere, Charles, Jack, Bob, Nova, Stormy, Ritz, Buffy”. It stated as follows:

“I have formed the opinion that alleviating the distress of the animal(s) necessitates the removal of the animal from the place where it currently is.”

10On July 12, 2021 AWS issued a notice of removal (the “Notice of Removal”). The appellant is appealing the Notice of Removal which stated the following:

“The following animals have been removed pursuant to section 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019”:

“9 horses of varying age, sex & breed: Redford, Charles, Bob, Charles, Jack, Cashmere, Nova, Stormy, Ritz”

11On July 27, 2021 AWS issued a statement of account (the “SOA”). The appellant is appealing the SOA in relation to the nine horses that were removed. The statement reflected costs for transporting the horses on the date of their removal to a boarding facility, boarding costs, veterinarian costs and farrier costs for the total amount of $15,084.35, including:

• Transportation costs $1,582.00
• Boarding costs ($23/horse/day) $3,342.54
• Veterinarian costs $8,634.31
• Animal care costs (Farrier services) $1,525.50

12On September 9, 2021 AWS issued a second SOA. The appellant is appealing the second SOA in relation to nine horses that were kept in boarding and received further treatment. The statement reflected additional boarding costs, veterinarian and farrier costs for the total amount of $11,587.21, including:

• Boarding costs ($23/horse/day from July 27 to September 7, 2021) $9,824.41
• Veterinarian costs (physical exams, sedation, euthanasia) $1,310.80
• Animal care costs (Farrier trim – 8 horses at $50/horse) $452.00

G. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

ISSUE 1: WERE THE HORSES IN DISTRESS AT THE TIME OF THEIR REMOVAL?

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

13The appellant took the position that none of her horses showed any signs of distress, having looked up the definition on Equine Canada’s website. She stated that they had no issues eating or drinking.

14The appellant testified that she disagreed with Dr. Robertson’s assessment of the body condition of her horses, saying that the feed quality had decreased in the Spring and some horses had a problem with that. She added that she wasn’t concerned as hay would be available shortly.

15The appellant further testified that hay and bags of feed and shavings were all available, but the Inspector didn’t ask to see them, and she didn’t think to point them out. She said her horses were fed by her four times a day, and they were always provided with water.

16The appellant acknowledged that the horses were overdue to see a farrier for their hooves, and a veterinarian for their teeth. She said it had been some time since these professionals had seen her horses, but that it hadn’t been years as claimed by the respondent. She did not see any of these as causing her animals distress, or an emergency.

17The appellant acknowledged that when her veterinarian had attended a couple of years ago, he had commented on the conditions of the horse’s housing including the accumulation of manure and used bedding, and suggested rehoming one of her client’s horses, and that she had agreed to address these issues within a few weeks. This was substantiated by a report from Cannington Veterinary Services provided to the respondent with the appellant’s permission. The veterinarian visit was on November 13, 2019.

18Ethan Carty, the appellant’s occasional farmhand, testified that he assisted the farrier Mike McCarthy and his apprentice Joe in the late summer or early fall of 2020 with the horses, holding onto them while he took care of their hooves.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

19The respondent took the position that when Inspectors responded to a complaint regarding the conditions of the horses’ housing, they found the conditions warranted issuing the Compliance Order. When the Inspectors returned for a compliance inspection and found the appellant had failed to address the measures ordered, they returned with a veterinarian to do a herd assessment. Based on the veterinarian’s issuance of the Certificate of Veterinarian, and the appellant’s failure to comply with the Compliance Order, the horses were deemed to be in distress and were removed to relieve their distress.

20Inspector Linsey Hay (the “Inspector”) testified for the respondent, She stated that she and AWS Inspector Stefanie Mayrl (the “Inspectors”) conducted an inspection of the appellant’s property on June 28, 2021 in response to a complaint received that horses were being kept in piles of feces inside their stalls and never let outside for exercise. The inspection was conducted under the AWS’s power to inspect for the purpose of determining compliance with the standards of care set out in the Act.

21Inspector Hay stated that the Inspectors found nine horses in the barn, in conditions that did not meet the standards of care in the National Farm Animal Care Council’s Code of Practice (the “Code of Practice”; available from Equine Canada). They found the following issues:

• The body condition of the horses was poor (hip bones and ribs protruding).
• The hooves of several horses appeared to be excessively overgrown causing malformed hooves and deformities; Nova had slipper foot and one horse was standing oddly to relieve discomfort of hooves.
• Three horses were housed together in one stall.
• There was an excessive accumulation of manure and wet bedding in the stalls, between 16” – 24”.
• The height of the accumulation within several of the stalls was such that it caused the horse’s heads to touch the rafters.
• There was no apparent source of feed or clean bedding for the horses.
• Water was only available in some of the stalls.
• The barn lacked adequate and appropriate lighting; the barn was in complete darkness; when the lights were turned on a flashlight was still needed to navigate and inspect the horses.
• The stalls appeared not to be structurally sound and were in a state of disrepair with wires sticking out; and
• The fencing outside was in disrepair.

22Inspector Hay testified that on July 8, 2021 the Inspectors re-attended the property for a compliance inspection. The appellant was not present, and later that day she telephoned the appellant to let her know that she was extending the compliance date from July 8 to July 12, 2021, having found that the matters identified in the Compliance Order had not been addressed.

23Inspector Hay testified that on July 12, 2021 the Inspectors again attended the property for a compliance inspection, accompanied by veterinarian Dr. Bruce Robertson to conduct a herd assessment.

24Inspector Hay testified that Dr. Robertson signed a Certificate of Veterinarian advising that the horses be removed from the property. A copy of the Certificate of Veterinarian and a Removal Order were served on the appellant and nine horses were removed from the property and transported to a boarding facility.

25Inspector Hay testified that further inspections of the property were conducted on July 26, August 18 and September 8, 2021. Progress had been made to address issues in the Compliance Order, but the appellant was still not in full compliance. She gave as examples that the lighting had not been addressed, and that while the stalls were cleaner, feces were still found around the perimeter of each. She determined that conditions were still not adequate for the horses to be returned.

26Dr. Robertson testified as the respondent’s expert witness. He testified to the conditions he witnessed when he attended the appellant’s property on July 12, 2021, including the following:

• One stall had to be dug out to be able to open it because of the accumulated level of feces and old bedding (12”-14”).
• He assessed each horse to have a body score of 2-5, ranging from emaciation to acceptable. Generally, the horses were under the average expected.
• The horses’ teeth required dental care.
• While six horses were housed in individual stalls, 3 horses were housed in a larger pen/alleyway.
• The barn was dark, and the lighting system did not provide significant light when turned on.
• The air quality within the barn was poor with excessive particulate matter, and there were odours of manure, urine and mold.
• The barn was older and at risk because of the structural condition, giving as examples that the supporting beams appeared to be sagging and ready to collapse, and that the section of the floor above the horses was untrustworthy.

27Dr. Robertson testified that the horses were malnourished, either because there was insufficient feed, or because the nutritional value of the feed was lacking. He noted that lack of dental care could be the reason for not eating properly, especially in aged horses. He stated that the Code of Practice dictates that a veterinarian be consulted to address emaciation.

28Dr. Robertson gave his opinion that keeping horses indoors in a barn without lighting, and not providing sufficient time outdoors would have a psychological effect on the horses.

29Dr. Robertson testified that horses needed to be turned out regularly for exercise and they need freedom to interact with each other as they are social creatures.

30Dr. Robertson also testified regarding the condition of the horse’s hooves, estimating that the length of time without attention could be up to 3 years, but that it was difficult to assess. He stated that unattended nail growth changes the biomechanics with how horses stand to reduce weight on their feet.

31When questioned about the frequency of farrier care required by horses, Dr. Robertson stated that regular maintenance was required every 6 to 8 weeks, and that if there was extreme overgrowth, every 2 to 4 weeks. This degree of care he estimated would be required to remediate the hooves for up to one year, after which time the farriers could return to regular maintenance.

32Dr. Robertson issued the Certificate of Veterinarian, based on his assessment that the horses were in distress on July 12, 2021.

33The respondent submitted considerable documentary evidence, including photographs of the horses and living conditions from the various inspections, videos of some of the horses walking to show how the gait was affected by nail growth, veterinarian reports of Dr. Robertson who attended the property on July 12, 2021, and Dr. Rebecca Wilson (DVM) who attended to the horses after their removal.

34Dr. Wilson was not called as a witness. According to Dr. Wilson’s report she examined all nine horses on July 13, 2021. Her report states that in general “they all showed signs of neglect and failure to meet their basic needs, namely adequate feed, hygiene, routine care, and freedom from pain”. She stated that there was evidence of constant and long-term neglect, and that the issues were largely avoidable or at least could have been addressed earlier.

35Dr. Wilson’s report documented her findings in detail in individual medical reports for each horse. She made note of evidence of poor dental care and that various teeth extractions were necessary. She further noted evidence of poor hoof care and that a farrier was engaged to trim the horse’s hooves, requiring three separate visits (July 13, 15 and 20, 2021).

36Dr. Wilson noted that one of the horses, Nova, was a particularly distressing case, having severely “slippered” feed and evidence of “chronic laminitis”, a very painful process causing significant lameness and distress. He was also severely affected with melanomas. On September 7, 2021 it was necessary to euthanize Nova to relieve him of his distress. The report was dated September 9, 2021 and did not document the euthanasia of Charles on September 14, 2021 as discussed later by the parties.

37Dr. Wilson also made note in her report that the number of skull fractures amongst the horses was abnormal, and in her opinion indicated inappropriate housing failing to allow freedom of movement.

Analysis

38Section 1(1) of the Act defines “distress” as “a state of being” when an animal is:

a) In need of proper care, water, food, or shelter,

b) Injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or

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

39I find that the nine horses removed on July 12, 2021 were in distress, supported by testimony and evidence that the definition in its entirety has been met.

Distress, as defined in clause (a) “in need of proper care, water, food or shelter”

40I find that the horses were in distress, relying on clause (a) in the definition. I make this finding based on the testimony, videos and photographs of Inspector Hay that the horses were not provided adequate care, water, food or shelter, when she described the buildup of feces and used bedding in the stalls, the lack of turnout evidenced by lack of flattened grass in the pasture, lack of water in the stalls on several occasions, and lack of adequate food evidenced by the rib and hip bones showing on the horses; and the lack of care evidenced by the condition of the horses’ hooves and the difficulty the horses had walking and by the condition of the horses’ teeth.

41Dr. Robertson supported the Inspector’s evidence in his report, stating that the horses’ body conditions ranged from emaciated to acceptable. I am persuaded by Dr. Robertson’s opinion that the horses were in distress caused by poor air quality, lack of effective sanitation, lack of hoof care, lack of veterinarian care to address emaciation, and failure to provide appropriate exercise. While Dr. Robertson spoke to the conditions of barn being structurally unsound, I find he is not qualified to speak in this regard.

42The respondent submitted that it is relying on the Report of Dr. Wilson which documented evidence of the lack of care including emaciation to varying degrees in their individual medical records, matted manes and evidence of rain rot and dry skin indicating a lack of basic grooming.

43While the appellant claimed her horses were not in distress, she admitted that she had not had them cared for by a veterinarian or farrier in some time. I heard evidence from both parties however that the horses had not been cared for adequately. Veterinarian records dating from 2015 through 2019 indicate that the last appointment the appellant had booked was on November 13, 2019 to euthanize a horse, and only emergency calls were made throughout the 5-year period. The appellant’s witness testified that the horses last saw the farrier in late summer/early fall 2020, indicating that the horses had not had their hooves attended to in a year. Based on the required farrier schedule described by Dr. Robertson, this is tantamount to missing at least six sessions.

Distress, as defined in clause (b) “injured, sick, in pain or suffering”

44I also find that the horses were in distress based on clause (b) in the definition. I make this finding based on the medical records in Dr. Wilson’s report and her “Statement of Involvement”. While Dr. Wilson did not testify, and the appellant therefore had no opportunity for cross-examination, I reviewed her report and found that her findings substantiated the more general observations of Inspector Hay and of Dr. Robertson, and the photographic evidence. Dr. Wilson was charged with the care of the horses to relieve them of their distress from July 12, 2021 until at least September 9, 2021 when she authored her report and made detailed observations.

45In the medical records Dr. Wilson provided details of the horses’ overgrown hooves. She describes the severe condition of Nova’s front hooves (“slippering”) and chronic laminitis making it difficult for him to walk without difficulty and described that he had melanoma of the penis, anus, lips and lymph nodes. Nova was euthanized on September 7th. Dr. Wilson described “Bob’s hoof walls curled under themselves to the point where he had no flat surface to walk on, which chronically stretched and strained his tendons”, and described that the other horses “had such infected feet that the frogs rotted off their soles, exposing the delicate dermis below”. The report also indicates that dental care had to be provided, repairing years of neglect and that several horses had distortions of their skulls consistent with significant skull fractures, and that the proportion of injuries within the herd was unusual.

46The respondent testified that during the period that followed the horses’ removal, two required euthanasia (Nova on September 7, 2021, and Charles on September 14, 2021).

47The records make it clear that these two were sick, and that most or all of them were in pain or suffering to varying degrees.

Distress, as defined in clause (c) “abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation, or neglect”

48I further find that the horses were in distress based on clause (c) of the definition of this term under the Act, that the horses were subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation, or neglect, relying on the expert testimony and report of Dr. Robertson. He spoke of the emaciation and lack of dental care and hoof care of the horses, all signs of physical hardship and neglect. He spoke of the lack of lighting indoors and lack of exposure to daylight, stating that this could cause psychological hardship. Dr. Robertson also described how the lack of turnout deprived the horses of the ability to socialize, that is important to their wellbeing.

49On the balance of probabilities, I find the nine horses were in distress on the day of removal, meeting the full definition of distress in the Act.

ISSUE 2: WAS THE REMOVAL OF THE HORSES WARRANTED?

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

50The appellant provided no argument regarding the legal authority of AWS in removing her horses.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

51The respondent submitted that Inspector Hay’s evidence showed that a Compliance Order was issued and that the horses were subsequently removed because the appellant had failed to comply with the Compliance Order. The removal was also supported by the Certificate of a Veterinarian, a copy of which, along with the Removal Order, was served on the appellant on the day that the nine horses were removed.

52The respondent submitted that the removal of the horses was justified and legal, and all proper procedures were followed.

Analysis

53Section 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 where:

a) A veterinarian has advised the inspector in writing that alleviating the animal’s distress necessitates its removal; and

c) An order respecting the animal has been made under section 30 and the order has not been complied with.

54I find that the removal of the horses was warranted because both conditions of Section 31(1) authorizing removal were met. First, the veterinarian advised the Inspector in writing that removal of the horses was necessary to relieve them of their distress. Second, the Compliance Order had not been fully addressed by the appellant on the date of their removal.

ISSUE 3: HAS THE OWNER COMPLIED WITH THE COMPLIANCE ORDER?

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

55The appellant, supported by testimony from her witness Ethan Carty, stated that she is now caught up in the barn; it has been cleaned out and all interior repairs in the stalls have been completed including replacing the stall doors. Ethan will continue to come on weekends to help the appellant with any ongoing repairs.

56Ethan Carty spoke about his past employment with the appellant, noting that he worked part time from November 2019 until October 2020, turning out the horses, feeding and watering them, and doing general maintenance work. He testified that he has been working for the appellant again recently, taking care of cleaning out the stalls down to the concrete, and fixing loose screws in the stalls and rehanging the stall doors.

57The appellant testified that to be able to turn out the horses for exercise the electric fencing needs to be repaired and requires constant maintenance.

58The appellant advised that the only other outstanding item is putting water troughs outside, but that there is no point until the horses are back because the materials are light weight and the troughs will blow away if not in use. She agreed that she can put them in place when horses are ready to be returned or show them to Inspectors when they return for an inspection.

59The appellant advised that there is nothing she can do to upgrade the lighting until the electrician comes; she has been having difficulty booking him as specialized electrical work is required in a barn. She said she will look for another electrician to do the work more quickly.

60I asked the appellant if she understood need for ongoing farrier care and need for nutrition plan and she agreed that she understood the requirements.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

61Inspector Hall testified that on September 8th when she conducted another inspection, the following was observed:

• Stalls have been cleaned out, but hardened feces still exist around the perimeter of the stalls.
• Lighting had still not been addressed.
• There is no outside area for exercise, and no shelter in the pasture.
• No washer troughs have been placed outside in the paddock; and
• The barn is still in a state of disrepair.

63Dr. Robertson testified regarding the state of the horses’ hooves, and the schedule of attention that would be needed for up to one year before regular maintenance could resume. Invoices supporting the first and second SOA indicate that intensive farrier treatment has been completed (at $150/horse) and that the horses are now requiring regular treatment (at $50/horse), presumably on a time frame of 2 – 4 weeks for up to one year.

64The respondent submits that the appellant has not demonstrated an understanding for the need for care and needs to comply with the Code of Practice. The respondent sent a copy to appellant on August 31 and discussed it with her on September 2, 2021. He agreed to send it to her again.

Analysis

65The Compliance Order outlined a number of requirements to be met, which can be divided into medical care (now within the control of AWS and its agents), and conditions for the horses including stalls and daily turnout.

66I find that the respondent needs to provide direction to Dr. Wilson to develop a nutrition plan, a recommended schedule for dental care, and a schedule for farrier treatment, and to submit these to the appellant to follow.

67Having reviewed the evidence before me, I find that the appellant has complied with the Compliance Order as it is written, for the items within her control. The appellant’s witness has testified that the stalls have been fully cleaned, which was an item in the Compliance Order, and that he had fixed the stalls and rehung the doors. While the appellant provided no photographic evidence to support this, on the balance of probabilities I am inclined to believe that the work to the stalls has been addressed. The inspector’s testimony regarding her inspection is based on an inspection conducted two weeks before the hearing and not current.

68By her own admission the appellant recognizes that to be able to turn the horses out, she needs to complete fence repairs and provide water troughs and she has not completed these items. So, while these items are not listed in the Compliance Order, she recognizes the need to complete them before she can put the horses in the paddock. I therefore find this item to turn the horses out daily outstanding.

69The respondent made mention several times that the conditions did not meet the Code of Practice. I have reviewed the Act and find that it states in section 13(2) that agricultural animal care, management or husband is not required to comply with the standards of care referenced in the Act (O.Reg. 444/19) where these are carried on in accordance with the reasonable and generally accepted practices. As the Code of Practice is available from Equine Canada, I would therefore expect that owners are expected to follow this Code. While the appellant said she couldn’t find it online, I had no difficulty locating the Code of Practice, noting that it was first released in 2013.

70The respondent reported several other outstanding items in her September 8, 2021 inspection however these are not described in the Compliance Order. I cannot consider any items that are not described in the Compliance Order, including the lighting. I also note that while the Inspector said a shelter was needed, the Code of Practice provides either for a constructed or a natural shelter in pastures. The Inspector didn’t elaborate on what if any provisions are available for shelter.

ISSUE 4: SHOULD THE ANIMALS BE RETURNED TO THE OWNER?

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

71The appellant stated that she wants her horses returned. She promises to complete all outstanding issues in the Compliance Order and to provide regular veterinarian and farrier care for them. She testified that she has just received the money from refinancing her home and will be using it to improve conditions for the horses.

72The appellant testified that she has been running a boarding, training and showing facility and giving lessons for close to 40 years. She shared that due to the death of her partner a few years ago, and the difficulty with getting help on the farm recently, she had let things go, and these circumstances were unusual. She advised that the only time there was an issue was over the past winter, not over a period of years.

73In cross-examination, the appellant said she may be willing to rehome some of her horses, and that she would prefer this to surrendering them because she would be able to visit them.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

74The respondent indicated that AWS wants to return the remaining horses to the appellant, but that they can’t do so until the Order has been complied with.

75The respondent is concerned that the appellant may not provide the necessary care in the future, especially with her ongoing monetary issues. He suggested she surrender her horses to the Crown. He advised that the AWS bills for the horses’ ongoing care are escalating, but that they will cease when the appellant gives up her horses.

Analysis

76Section 38(9) of the Act gives the Board powers to Order than an animal removed under subsection 31(1) be returned to the owner.

77I have reviewed the evidence before me and decline to order the return of the remaining 7 horses to the appellant, Suzanne McGreal. My decision is based on consideration of two factors: compliance with the Compliance Order, including the ability to follow veterinarian recommendations for nutrition, dental care, and farrier care; and the condition of the horses when they are returned.

78As described in the previous section, the Compliance Order has not been fully addressed as of this hearing. In addition, while it appears that the remaining horses are improving, it is not evident that their distress has resolved. By Dr. Robertson’s testimony, their hooves still require more frequent attention than the usual schedule. While Dr. Wilson was not called as a witness, I found the detail of the individual medical reports compelling, and Dr. Wilson’s summary report noted that several horses are still experiencing issues and need ongoing dental attention. I am convinced by this report, in particular because Dr. Wilson has had responsibility for the ongoing care of the horses from July 13, 2021 until the date when she wrote her report on September 9, 2021, some seven weeks. As such, I decline to make an order for the return of the remaining horses that are still in care at this time.

79The respondent has made arguments against the return of the horses based on future distress. I have considered the wording of Sections 30(1) which describes animals that are “in distress” and find that the Removal Order is based only on current distress. His arguments for future distress are outside of my jurisdiction in this hearing which is based on my powers under Section 38(9) Sentence 2 and the Removal Order. As such, I have not based my decision in any way on the arguments based on any potential future distress of the animals.

80The appellant appears sincere in acknowledging her neglect and the circumstances that led to the horse’s distress. I am inclined to give weight to her intention to remediate the living conditions of her horses, particularly as she has taken financial responsibility by paying the first SOA and that she has refinanced her house to do the outstanding work. She has re-engaged a farmhand to assist her in restoring conditions.

81I encourage the parties to work together so that the horses can be returned in the future, when the items in the Compliance Order as written are addressed, and when the horses are no longer in distress or are at a point where they may continue to be treated under the appellant’s care. At that time the respondent assured me that they will work with the appellant to ensure that she follows the veterinarian’s recommendations. I am confident that they may also choose to do follow-up inspections to ensure turn out requirements are followed. At that time, or before, the parties may also consider working together to ensure that the Code of Practice standard is followed which may include enhanced lighting in the barn.

ISSUE 5: SHOULD THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT BE CONFIRMED, REVOKED OR VARIED?

82Section 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. The owner is responsible for its expenses.

83Section 38(9) empowers the Board to confirm, revoke or vary a statement of account.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

84The appellant appealed the SOA issued on July 27, 2021 for the following reasons, noting that several of these apply as well to the SOA issued on September 9, 2021:

• The trailering rate exceeds the industry standard rates, and her own costs paid in the past.
• The farrier fee of $150 per horse in the first SOA is excessive. The industry standard for a farrier is $45 per horse, and her farrier charges $50 per horse. The rate of $50 per horse charged in the second SOA is the normal rate and acceptable.
• The daily boarding rate is excessive, based on the horse’s requirements and on local competitor rates of $400 - $500 per month. The rate of $23 per day amount to $700 per month.
• None of the horses exhibited any sign of difficulty eating or drinking, therefore having all her horse’s teeth treated as an emergency was not appropriate. The treatment should have been provided in a more fiscally responsible manner (e.g. the two older horses done first), but not as an emergency and the veterinarian should not have used multiple doses of tranquilizer. In the second SOA, the veterinarian invoiced for 3 horses to be tranquilized for dental examinations.

85The appellant requests a reduction of the SOA based on these concerns as they are not in line with published industry standards and would not have been incurred if treatments had been provided at home. The appellant contends that nothing invoiced supports emergency or distress.

86On cross-examination, when made aware that the initial farrier charges were based on the level of care required given the condition of the horses’ hooves, the appellant accepted the initial rate was justified.

87The appellant did not agree with the need for sedating the horses while doing dental work. After some evidence was heard, she accepted that the veterinarian makes that decision, and that her appeal should be focused on issues with the rate charged.

88The appellant was unable to provide any evidence that the trailering rate exceeds the industry standards and, in the end accepted that the respondent only charged fees based on what it was invoiced.

89During the hearing the appellant changed her position and accepted the respondent’s position that the boarding rate was reasonable, and that they couldn’t be compared to monthly boarding rates.

90The appellant testified that she paid the first SOA less approximately $1,600 which she thought was an accounting error. She noted that $8,600 was charged for the veterinarian, but that the supporting invoice was for $6,800. She believes the numbers may have been transposed and paid the invoiced amount.

Respondent’s Evidence and Submissions

91The respondent submitted that the items in each SOA issued to date were reasonable and as invoiced to AWS.

92The respondent explained that the farrier rate which was initially $150/horse was due to the degree of work required; thereafter the rate was $50/horse for regular maintenance.

93The respondent maintained that the boarding charges of $23/day are not excessive as a daily rate. He stated the rate is much cheaper than boarding charges for other animals, giving as an example $35/day for dogs.

94The respondent explained that the veterinarian costs included ongoing physical examinations, sedation and euthanasia of 2 horses. In response to the appellant questioning the need for sedation, he explained that the veterinarian determined it was necessary to examine and treat the horses’ teeth.

95The respondent’s submissions for the first SOA included two invoices from veterinarians. The first was from Dr. Wilson for approximately $6,800, and a second invoice was from Dr. Robertson for approximately $1,800 for services on July 12, 2021, the date of the removal.

96I asked the respondent why a receipt that was based on the inspection and supported the removal on July 12, 2021 was included in the SOA; the respondent then withdrew the invoice. The respondent then agreed with the appellant that by removing this item, the first SOA had been paid in full

Analysis

97The first SOA issued on July 27, 2021 shall be varied, reducing it to $13,284.35. I confirm the second SOA, in the amount of $11,587.21 issued on September 9, 2021. I base these decisions on the respondent’s agreement to remove an invoice from Dr. Robertson from the first SOA, and agreement of the appellant that the other charges are acceptable.

ORDER

1Therefore, pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the Act, the Board orders the appeal of the Removal Order dismissed and declines to order the return of the remaining 7 horses to the appellant, Suzanne McGreal.

2The Board also varies the SOA to $13,284.45.

3The Board confirms the second SOA in the amount of $11,587.21.