Kristina Aucoin v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 ONACRB 9

Tribunals Ontario Animal Care Review Board

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Commission D’étude Des Soins Aux Animaux

Date: 2021-05-04 File Number: 13231 ACRB

Appeal under subsections 38(1) and 38(2) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O., 2019, c.13

Between:

Kristina Aucoin

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Harriet Lewis, Member Animal Care Review Board

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sara Munoz, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services

Held by teleconference: April 6, 2021

OVERVIEW

1This is an appeal under Section 38(1) and 38(2) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (the “PAWS Act”). The Appellant, Ms. Aucoin, is one of the owners of Baby, an intact male two-year-old American bulldog. The other owner is Ms. Aucoin’s spouse, Cheflyn Ford (“Mr. Ford”).

2Ms. Aucoin, Mr. Ford, their 5 children and Baby live in a one-bedroom apartment in a large Toronto apartment building (“the apartment”). On March 18, 2021 Baby was involved in two incidents in the apartment which necessitated the attendance of Toronto Police Services, (“TPS”). The second of these led to Baby’s removal to the custody of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, (“the Chief Inspector”). At the time of those incidents, Ms. Aucoin, her 6 month old daughter and her 16 year old daughter were residing elsewhere, and therefore Ms. Aucoin was not present. Three of Ms., Aucoin’s other children, sons, aged 8, 9 and 14, were living in the apartment with Baby and another dog belonging to a family friend. Mr. Ford was staying in a friend’s apartment in the same building and was present in the apartment for the first incident and responded to the second by calling Toronto Police Services (“TPS”).

3The first of the incidents which led to a call to TPS resulted from Baby’s biting a female visitor’s leg during a loud argument between Mr. Ford and a male visitor. The victim was not seriously injured. The second visit by TPS later that day was in response to the discovery by the eldest son that sometime after the first incident, an unknown individual had entered the un-locked apartment and inflicted a life-threatening stab wound to Baby’s abdomen. Ms. Aucoin was notified of Baby’s injury by her eldest son who telephoned to tell her. She immediately contacted Mr. Ford who in turn called TPS. TPS attended and with the help of two neighbours, took Baby to the Toronto Veterinary Emergency Hospital (“TVEH”) for attention.

4The YVEH clinic manager and attending veterinarians attempted, but failed, to get specific instructions on Baby’s care by telephone calls with each of Mr. Ford and Ms. Aucoin. Even with several attempts to get instructions, Mr. Ford would not discuss the matter, hanging up the telephone on the caller. When they reached Ms. Aucoin, she was advised that Baby needed either to have surgery or to be humanely euthanized. Ms. Aucoin was given the option to surrender Baby to AWS but declined to do so. Instead she indicated her intention to try to raise the funds for surgery. TVEH did not hear from Ms. Aucoin again with any instructions concerning Baby’s care.

5TVEH was able to stabilize Baby overnight. However, on the morning of March 19, 2021, Baby’s condition was deteriorating and TVEH contacted AWS. Senior Investigator Rachael Vandenkroonenberg of AWS attended at the clinic and observed that Baby was in distress with danger of further deterioration. In the absence of instructions from either of Baby’s owners, she obtained a Veterinarian’s Certificate under s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act and issued a Notice of Removal to Mr. Ford.

6Later that day, she served the Notice of Removal for Baby’s emergency care on Ms. Aucoin at the apartment.

7Once Baby was taken into its custody, AWS gave instructions to TVEH to perform surgery to save Baby’s life. The surgery was successful, and Baby is now recovering at a boarding and training facility.

8The Inspector served Ms. Aucoin with a Statement of Account for Baby’s emergency care and surgery at TVEH on March 22, 2021. The Statement of Account was for $5,583.01. Copies of invoices totalling $499.16 for some of Baby’s post-operative medical attention at other veterinarian clinics were delivered and tendered in evidence at the hearing, but no other accounts for ongoing boarding or other care were provided.

9In her Notice of Appeal (the “Appeal”) filed on March 23, 2021, Ms. Aucoin asked this Board to return Baby to her and to allow her to discharge the accounts for Baby’s care in instalments.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

10At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent asked Ms. Aucoin if she was appealing Baby’s removal, the Statement of Account, or both. Ms. Aucoin stated that she was not challenging the removal of Baby to the Chief Inspector’s custody in the circumstances, but she wants Baby returned to her. She is appealing the Statement of Account because she wants to pay the amount owing in instalments. The Respondent’s agent confirmed that Baby is no longer in distress, but the Statement of Account is to be paid in full within 10 days of this decision and not in instalments.

ISSUES

11Ms. Aucoin having confirmed that she is not appealing Baby’s removal and AWS confirming that Baby is no longer in distress, the issues to be decided by the Board at this hearing relate to the Statement of Account and the invoices for post-operative expenses as follows:

i. Is the Statement of Account of March 22, 2021 for necessaries to relieve distress ?

ii. Should the invoices of March 28 and April 1, 2021 be included as part of the Statement of Account payable by Ms. Aucoin?

iii. Should Ms. Aucoin be permitted to pay any amounts owing in instalments?

RESULT

12For the reasons below, I confirm that the Statement of Account of March 22, 2021 reflecting services provided by TVEH, was for necessaries required to relieve Baby’s distress and order that the appellant is required to pay the account in full. Unless an agreement is made with the Chief Inspector under section 35(5) of the PAWS Act, the full amount is to be paid within the statutory period of 10 business days from the date of this Order. The invoices from Alta Vista and Cranberry Hills animal hospitals are not in the form required by the Act and not Statements of Account to be paid by the appellant.

LAW

13Section 35(1) of The PAWS Act provides that if an animal welfare inspector has provided an animal with necessaries to relieve its distress or the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has taken an animal into care, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may “from time to time serve on the owner or custodian of the animal a statement of account respecting the cost of the necessaries.”

14Section 35(2) provides that any such statement of account “must have printed or written on it the contents of subsections 38(2) and (5)” of the Paws Act. These clauses establish the right of the owner of the animal to appeal an account.

15Section 35(5) of the PAWS Act provides that “before the expiry of the relevant time period set out in clause (4) (a) or (b) , the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may enter into a written agreement with the owner or custodian to extend the time for payment or reduce the amount that is to be paid, or both.”

16Sections 1(1) and (2) of Ontario Regulation 447/19 provide that the prescribed time within which the owner or custodian must pay the stated, confirmed or varied amount is 10 business days from the date of the Board’s decision.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

17Evidence on behalf of the respondent was given by: Dr. Cynthia Leung D.V.M., a veterinarian at TVEH; by Constable Yvette Chiasson of TPS who accompanied Baby to TVEH and continued to monitor Baby’s condition prior to surgery; and by AWS Senior Investigator Rachel Vandenkroonenberg, who issued the Notice of Removal of Baby and has managed his care since the removal. Ms. Aucoin gave evidence on behalf of herself and Mr. Ford. There is no dispute as to the facts of Baby’s removal from the apartment or of his grave condition at that time.

18According to both Dr. Leung, the admitting veterinarian, and the Referral Case Summary from Toronto Emergency Veterinary Hospital prepared by TVEH veterinarian Dr. Alexandra Flores which was entered as an exhibit, Baby was admitted on March 18, 2021 with a stab wound attributed to a knife injury to his left lateral abdomen. Some abdominal contents were exposed. Baby was mildly hemorrhaging and was “extremely aggressive.” He was sedated and stabilized while the clinic manager and attending veterinarians made efforts to get instructions concerning his care; first from Mr. Ford and then from Ms. Aucoin.

19Each of the appellant and Mr. Ford were told that abdominal surgery was strongly recommended, or in the alternative, humane euthanasia was appropriate as Baby’s condition was expected to further deteriorate.

20The evidence of Dr. Leung, also reflected in Dr. Flores’ treatment summary, was that TVEH told Ms. Aucoin that the expected cost of Baby’s surgery was estimated at $6,000-$8,000 or even higher, depending on various factors such as whether he needed transfusions and/or ICU care. The alternative was humane euthanasia. As noted above, Ms. Aucoin was given the option of surrendering Baby to AWS and was told that in any event, Baby’s health status required a prompt decision on a course of action. Ms. Aucoin refused both euthanasia and a surrender to AWS and told TVEH that she intended to raise funds for the surgery.

21After the conversation in the early evening of March 18, 2021 Ms. Aucoin did not communicate further with the TVEH. Dr. Leung testified that notwithstanding that no instructions had been received, on the morning of March 19, 2021 it was evident from Baby’s condition that an immediate decision had to be made to either operate to save Baby’s life, or to euthanize him.

22Constable Chiasson is the TPS officer who attended at the Ford/Aucoin apartment in the afternoon of March 18, 2021 in response to an urgent call from Mr. Ford advising that Baby had been stabbed. She testified that with the assistance of two of the Ford/Aucoin neighbours, she delivered Baby to TVEH. She remained in contact with TVEH concerning Baby’s condition. When by mid-morning on March 19, 2021, no instructions had been received from either Ms. Aucoin or Mr. Ford, she contacted AWS Senior Investigator Vandenkroonenberg to report about Baby and his circumstances. In response, Senior Investigator Vandenkroonenberg attended TVEH, observed Baby and met and discussed Baby’s condition with Dr. Leung.

23Following the discussion, Dr. Leung issued a Certificate of a Veterinarian confirming that Baby was in distress which necessitated his removal from the custody of Mr. Ford and Ms. Aucoin. At about 2:30 p.m. that afternoon, after confirming that Baby’s bloodwork indicated that he was still a viable candidate for surgery, Senior Inspector Vandenkroonenberg gave consent for Baby’s surgery. At approximately 4 p.m. that day, Senior Inspector Vandenkrooneberg attended at the apartment and served Ms. Aucoin with the Notice of Removal.

24Baby survived the surgery and was discharged to AWS with detailed instructions for post-operative care. A Statement of Account for the TVEH care in the amount of $5,583.01 was signed by Senior Investigator Vandenkroonenberg and served on Ms. Aucoin on March 22, 2021. Acceptance was acknowledged. The detailed invoice from TVEH for Baby’s emergency care, tests, surgery, post operative care and medication is for a total of $6,412.67, less a 25% discount, plus HST, resulting in the final total of $5,583.01. This amount is slightly lower than the lower end of the pre-operative estimate given to Ms. Aucoin.

25In her testimony, Ms. Aucoin spoke about the importance of Baby to her children. He has been a family pet since his birth. She expressed her gratitude to TVEH for saving Baby’s life. When told of his injury, she was determined to do whatever she could to find the funds to pay for Baby’s surgery, but despite calls to friends for financial help and a “Go Fund Me” campaign, she was not and is not able to raise the funds to pay for the surgery. Neither she nor Mr. Ford are currently employed, and the family relies on social assistance. She agreed that any payments from the pet insurance coverage on Baby could be applied towards the cost of Baby’s care. She had no disagreement with the amount of the Statement of Account, only the terms of payment. She said she intends to put expected funds from a government child benefit towards the cost of Baby’s care, but she does not expect that she can raise any further funds to discharge the account unless she can pay it in installments.

26Baby continues to recover. Because he inflicted a bite on a visitor in the first of the incidents on March 18, 2021, he was placed under a 10-day bite quarantine. As there was no evidence that he had been vaccinated for rabies, he required a rabies vaccination. The post operative/discharge instructions specified that he was to have a veterinary check-up and have his staples removed between 10 and 14 days after surgery, with an earlier examination if there were concerns about his recovery.

27On March 25, 2021, Baby was assessed at Alta Vista Animal Hospital (“Alta Vista”), for concerns about the swelling around his incision and to determine if Alta Vista could board Baby during his bite quarantine. At the time of his assessment, he was deemed to be very aggressive and had to be sedated and muzzled. The report of Alta Vista, provided as an exhibit, indicated that the swelling around the incision site was normal and no further attention to it was required. Alta Vista declined to board Baby because of his aggressive temperament. It provided AWS an invoice for Baby’s sedation and examination in the amount of $316.16 including HST.

28Following the visit to Alta Vista, Baby was placed by AWS in a boarding and training facility with an animal behaviorist who was able to address his medical and behavioral needs. He was housed there at the time of this hearing. On April 1, 2021, Baby was examined at Cranberry Hill Animal Hospital (“Cranberry Hill”). His staples were removed, and he was inoculated for rabies and kennel cough. AWS received an invoice for those services in the amount of $183.60. Baby has a return appointment booked at Cranberry Hill on April 19, 2021.

29I find the Statement of Account from AWS served on Ms. Aucoin was for necessaries to relieve Baby’s distress. Although I find that both the invoice from Alta Vista and from Cranberry Hill are reasonable, neither of them was created or provided to Ms. Aucoin in the form required by s. 35(2) of the PAWS Act for a statement of account, because they do not contain the required language as specified. I therefore do not find that they are “Statements of Account” under the PAWS Act for which Ms. Aucoin is responsible.

30I note that at the time of the hearing of this matter, AWS had not issued Ms. Aucoin with an updated Statement of Account for Baby’s boarding costs which Senior Investigator Vandenkroonenberg testified were ongoing at $70.00 per day. If at the date of this decision, any further Statements of Account for necessary care for Baby have been properly created and served on Ms. Aucoin, she will be liable to pay such additional accounts or can appeal them in accordance with the s. 38(2) of the PAWS Act.

31As noted above, s. 35(5) of the PAWS Act provides that it is within the powers of the Chief Inspector, within the 10 days following this decision, to come to a written agreement with an owner to extend the time for payment or to reduce the amount that is to be paid for the provision of necessaries, or both. While s.38(9) gives this Board the power to confirm, revoke or vary a Statement of Account served under s. 35(1), I do not find that the PAWS Act gives authority to this Board to alter the payment provisions by extending time or allowing for installments, and I therefore decline to do so.

ORDER

32For the reasons set out above, the Board orders that the appeal of the Statement of Account dated March 22, 2021 is dismissed. Subject to an agreement with the Chief Inspector to reduce or waive the account, or to allow the appellant to pay in instalments, the appellant is required to make payment of the Statement of Account within 10 business days of the date of this Order.