Appeals under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, R.S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
John Geddes
Appellants
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicators: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
Peter Simmons, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: John Geddes, Appellant
Eric Gillespie, Counsel
For the Respondent: Senior Investigator Carly Atrooshi, and
Michael Draper, Regional Supervisor,
Animal Welfare Services
Kateryna Toderishena, Counsel
Court Reporter: Barbara Pollard
Written Submissions: October 4, 2022
Cross examination and Closing
Arguments by videoconference: October 14, 19, 2022
OVERVIEW
1John Geddes, the Appellant, is appealing eight Notices of Decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to Keep an Animal in Care (Decision to Keep in Care), of various animals, who were removed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) from his property. He is also appealing seven Statements of Account (SOA) issued by AWS for the care provided to the animals.
2The Appellant and his family operate the Bervie Zoological Park (the “Zoo”) located in Kincardine, Ontario. In addition to domestic animals, the Zoo houses a variety of exotic animals.
3AWS inspected the Zoo on August 26, 2021, October 1, 2021, December 20, 2021, March 15, 2022, April 20, 2022, and April 29, 2022. The latter two AWS inspections were conducted pursuant to inspection warrants issued by the Ontario Court of Justice in accordance with sections 24(4) and 24(5) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act).1
4Dr. Graham Crawshaw, veterinarian, issued a Certificate of a Veterinarian on April 29, 2022, to Inspector Carly Atrooshi (Inspector Atrooshi) of AWS certifying that he was of the opinion that it was necessary to remove the following animals to relieve them of their distress:
Table 1 – Animals Removed on April 29, 2022:
Zebras (2)
Domestic Small-Breed dogs (12)
Olive Baboon
New Guinea Singing dogs (4)
Juvenile Nilgai
Adult Nilgai
Juvenile Eland
Crested Porcupines (7)
Macaws (4)
Ring-Tailed Lemurs (4)
Peccary Pigs (3)
German Shepherd dog
5On April 29, 2022, AWS removed a number of animals from the Appellant’s property pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act and issued a Notice of Removal. The Appellant appealed AWS’s decision to remove the animals to the Board, and a hearing was held in June 2022. The decision in that matter,2 which was released on August 9, 2022, determined that the removal of the animals was lawful and in accordance with s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act as Dr. Crawshaw had advised Inspector Atrooshi in writing that alleviating the animal’s distress necessitated their removal.
6After the removal, the animals were relocated to various boarding facilities where they were evaluated and treated as required. This included initial assessments, baths, ear cleaning, nail trimming, medications, and, in some cases, dental and emergency medical care.
7Regional Supervisor Connie Mallory (Regional Supervisor Mallory) of AWS, the Respondent, issued eight Decisions to Keep in Care to the Appellant. The information regarding the Decisions to Keep in Care and the Appellants’ appeals to the Board are summarized as follows:
Table 2 – Decisions to Keep in Care and Appeals:
Decision to Keep Reference
Date of Decision to Keep
For the following animals
Date of Appellant’s Appeal
Decision to Keep #1
June 14, 2022
Olive Baboon ID #197
June 20, 2022
Decision to Keep #2
June 14, 2022
(2) Zebras IDs #159 - #160
June 20, 2022
Decision to Keep #3
August 8, 2022
Juvenile Eland ID #161
August 15, 2022
Decision to Keep #4
August 8, 2022
(4) Ring-Tailed Lemurs ID #178 - #181
August 15, 2022
Decision to Keep #5
August 8, 2022
(2) Green Wing Macaws ID #182 - #184
Military Macaw ID #183
Red Fronted Macaw ID #185
August 15, 2022
Decision to Keep #6
August 8, 2022
Adult Nilgai ID #200
Juvenile Nilgai ID #162
August 15, 2022
Decision to Keep #7
August 8, 2022
(3) Peccary Pigs ID #175 - #177
August 15, 2022
Decision to Keep #8
August 8, 2022
(12) Domestic Small-Breed dogs, various breeds, ages, genders ID #163 - #174
August 15, 2022
8Inspector Atrooshi issued seven SOAs to the Appellant for the care of the animals kept in care. The information regarding the SOAs and the Appellant’s appeals to the Board are summarized as follows:
Table 3 - Statements of Account
Statement of Account Reference
Date of SOA
Total Amount on SOA
For the following animals
Date of Appellant’s Appeal
SOA #1
June 13, 2022
$30,637.63
(12) Small-Breed dogs
June 16, 2022
SOA #2
June 27, 2022
$12,752.05
(4) Ring-Tailed Lemurs, ID #178 - #181,
(3) Peccary Pigs, ID #157 - 177
June 28, 2022
SOA #3
June 29, 2022
$15,245.53
Juvenile Nilgai, ID #162
Adult Nilgai, ID #200,
Adult Zebras, ID #159-160,
Juvenile Eland, ID #161
July 5, 2022
SOA #4
July 7, 2022
$5,882.24
German Sheppard dog, ID #158
July 13, 2022
SOA #5
July 7, 2022
$3,412.74
Olive Baboon ID #197
July 13, 2022
SOA #6
July 19, 2022
$8,588.00
(2) Singing Dogs ID #195, #196
July 26, 2022
SOA #7
July 19, 2022
$28,541.16
Porcupines and Macaws3 ID #182 - #192
July 26, 2022
9A hybrid hearing was held, with written submissions followed by cross-examination and closing arguments by videoconference. The videoconference portion of the hearing took place on October 14 and 19, 2022.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
10During the Case Conference of August 29, 2022, the parties agreed to the following issues in dispute4:
Should any of the animals removed from the Zoo on April 29, 2022, and subject to the Notices of Decisions to Keep in Care of various dates be returned the Appellant?
Should the following SOAs be confirmed, revoked, or varied?
SOA #1
June 13, 2022, in the amount of $30,637.63;
SOA #2
June 27, 2022, in the amount of $12,752.05
SOA #3
June 29, 2022, in the amount of $15,245.53;
SOA #4
July 7, 2022, in the amount of $5,882.24 for a German Shepherd dog, ID #158;
SOA #5
July 7, 2022, in the amount of $3,412.74 for an Olive Baboon, ID #197;
SOA #6
July 19, 2022, in the amount of $8,588.00 for (2) Singing Dogs, IDs #195 and 196; and
SOA #7
July 19, 2022, in the amount of $28,541.16 for various Porcupines and Macaws, IDs #182 – 192.
RESULT
11The Board:
- Finds that the following animals should not be returned to the Appellant:
Zebras (2)
Domestic Small-Breed dogs (12)
Olive Baboon (1)
Ring-Tailed Lemurs (4)
Juvenile nilgai (1)
Adult Nilgai (1)
Juvenile eland (1)
Peccary Pigs (3)
Macaws (4)
Is no longer required to determine whether the remaining animals set out in Table 1 should be returned as they were returned to the Appellants in September 2022; and
Confirms the following Statements of Account in the respective amounts:
SOA #1
$30,637.63
SOA #2
$12,752.05
SOA #3
$15,245.53
SOA #4
$5,882.24
SOA #5
$3,412.74
SOA #6
$8,588.00
SOA #7
$28,541.16
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Motion to Strike
12On September 26, 2022, prior to the oral hearing, the Appellant filed a document entitled “Revised Grounds” for their appeal with the Board. The document included a new Ground #4 which read as follows, “The removal of the animals caused distress and/or critical distress as defined under the Act; and/or the removal of the animals violated s. 3 of Ontario Regulation 444/19.”
13On September 29, 2022, the Respondent brought a Motion to Strike Ground #4 on the basis that:
This ground was irrelevant to the question of whether the SOA was issued in accordance with the PAWS Act; and
Ground #4 is outside the Board’s jurisdiction to consider on an SOA appeal as it related to complaints regarding the Inspectors’ conduct during the inspection and the removal of the animals.
14The Respondent sought an Order precluding the Appellant from calling evidence, cross-examining, or making submissions on the basis of this Ground #4 at the hearing.
15After hearing submissions from the parties, the Board declined to strike Ground #4 of the Appellant’s Revised Grounds of Appeal document. It is within the jurisdiction of the Board to confirm, revoke, or vary a SOA served under s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act, and the Board is not restricted in what factors it may consider in making such a determination. In making this finding, the Board reminded the Appellant that complaints regarding inspector conduct are addressed as described in Part III of the PAWS Act and it is not in the Board’s powers under s. 38(9) to consider Part III of the PAWS Act.
Procedural Agreement
16At the outset of the oral part of the hearing, counsel for the Appellant advised that the parties had reached an agreement that none of the named witnesses would be cross-examined, with the exception of the Respondent’s witness, AWS Regional Supervisor Mallory.
ANALYSIS
Onus of Proof
17The Appellant bears the onus of proof in these appeals, meaning that the Appellant is required to establish on a balance of probabilities that the animals removed on April 29, 2022, and subsequently taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care should be returned to them; and that the seven SOAs should be revoked or varied.
18The Respondent is required to show on a balance of probabilities that the basis for issuing the Decisions to Keep in Care met the test for reasonable grounds captured in s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
19The Respondent also bears the initial evidentiary burden to show that the charges on the SOAs are reasonable and reflect the actual cost of necessaries provided to alleviate the distress of the animals removed.
Should the Animals taken into the Respondent’s Care be Returned to the Appellant?
20For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the following animals should not be returned to the Appellant:
Zebras (2)
Domestic Small-Breed dogs (12)
Olive Baboon (1)
Ring-Tailed Lemurs (4)
Juvenile Nilgai
Adult Nilgai (1)
Juvenile Eland
Peccary Pigs (3)
Macaws (4)
21Under s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act, the CAWI may decide to keep an animal that was removed under s. 31(1) in its care if:
a) the CAWI determines it is necessary to relieve its distress, or
b) the CAWI has reasonable grounds to believe that the animal may be placed in distress if returned to its owner, or custodian.
22Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act, as the state of being:
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.
23The Respondent relied upon the following information in support of its Decisions to Keep in Care issued on June 14, 2022, and August 8, 2022:
Meeting with Regional Supervisor Driscoll, Senior Investigator Atrooshi, and Inspectors Pratt, Pryor, and Gotzman on June 6, 2022;
Inspector’s duty Photographs taken by the AWS team;
Exotic Animal & Housing Evaluation Logs, dated April 29, 2022;
R-Station Log Forms dated April 29, 2022;
Meeting with Dr. Crawshaw on June 6, 2022, and his reports based on his inspections dated October 1, 2021, April 20, 2022, and April 29, 2022;
Certificate of a Veterinarian dated April 29, 2022;
Supplementary Veterinarian Report of Dr. Robertson, dated May 13, 2022;
Statements of Dr. Farr regarding care provided to 12 small breed dogs, dated July 27, 2022;
Statements of Dr. McQueen and Dr. Zakrajsek, veterinarians;
Medical records for juvenile and adult Nilgai, and juvenile Eland;
Package titled “Combined Veterinary Records”, dated May 26, containing veterinary records for the Olive Baboon, 12 Small-Breed dogs, Lemurs, Macaws, Peccary Pigs, Singing Dogs, Zebras, Nilgai and Elands;
Affidavit of Senior Investigator Carly Atrooshi, dated May 31, 2022;
Affidavit of John Geddes dated June 2, 2022, and;
Records provided by the Appellant’s response to the AWS Records Demand dated June 9, 2022 (including Diet List June 2021 to June 2022 and veterinary invoices and records).
24Regional Supervisor Mallory gave evidence of each animal’s distress that included but was not limited to the following:
June 14, 2022 – Decision to Keep in Care
Olive Baboon - showing signs of excessive self-grooming causing hair loss and skin issues due to isolation stress. Not part of a baboon unit, which is more typical, and no evidence of human interaction or interactive-type toys essential to help alleviate boredom and behavioral problems, all of which are all failures to comply with s. 7(a)(b) of O. Reg. 444/19 the standards of care for captive primates.
Two (2) Zebras - overgrown hooves and suspected lack of regular hoof care on both male and female. Both required hoof-trimming, but required anesthesia. Appellant advised the female was suspected to be pregnant and trimming could not be performed for this reason until a later date.5 The male had thrush on all four hooves and swollen joints and the female had skin lesions, suspected to be from bites from the male. Evidence of failure to comply with s.3 (1)(3) and 5 (1) O. Reg 444/19. As of June 9, 2022, both Zebras continued to be in distress due to medical needs, and returning them would place them in distress pursuant to s. 31(6)(a) of the PAWS Act.
August 8, 2022 Decision to Keep in Care
Juvenile Eland - kept with 2 adults placing it in a potentially dangerous and unhealthy environment due to inadequate indoor and outdoor space for all 3 animals not meeting the requirements of s.5(1)(3) and 6(1)(a)(b)(c) O. Reg. 444/19. Overgrown hooves; anesthesia was required to trim hooves and is evidence of failure to meet the requirements of 3 (3) O. Reg 444/19. Based on a lack of information and evidence from the Appellant on an intended animal care program there is reason to believe that adequate and appropriate hoof care would not be performed placing the Eland in distress if returned.
Four (4) Ring-Tailed Lemurs - not being provided daily interaction, which is required by s.7(a) of O. Reg. 444/19. There is reason to believe that the barn conditions, lack of suitable environment to promote physical and behavioral health and well-being, and lack of interaction would place Ring-Tailed Lemurs into conditions of distress if returned pursuant to s. 31 (6) (a) of the PAWS Act. Update: A suitable outdoor enclosure is now available.
Four (4) Macaws - examination by veterinarian Dr. Roscoe who determined that the birds were thin and malnourished with three birds showing muscle wasting from lack of exercise and also evidence of feather-destructive behaviours. One bird had a bacterial infection requiring antibiotic treatment. The interior conditions of the Macaw environment included a poorly lit barn, unsanitary conditions with accumulated feces and high level of ammonia. The enclosure lacked proper perching and room for exercise contrary to s. 6(2) (a)(c) O. Reg. 444/19, and a review of the materials provided by the Appellant indicated no regular monitoring of birds by owner or veterinarian. There is reason to believe that macaws would be placed in conditions of distress based on the inadequate indoor enclosure, improper diet, lack of required medical care and monitoring and lack of exercise. Update: a suitable outdoor enclosure is now available.
Adult and juvenile Nilgai - have not received regular hoof care which requires special handling and anesthesia. There is no evidence from the records demand that this was provided; a requirement of s. 3(3) of O. Reg. 444/19 is that animals are to be provided with care necessary for their general welfare. There is reason to believe that the Nilgai would be placed in conditions of distress if owners do not provide proper and adequate hoof care if returned.
Peccary Pigs - caked in feces and walking on severely overgrown hooves when removed, and special handling and anesthesia is required for trimming. The Appellant provided no information to indicate adequate and appropriate hoof care was provided in the past. The animals do not have adequate shelter which is required to provide protection from the elements including harmful temperatures. The proposed new outdoor housing is sized appropriately, but remains under construction. Hoof care and shelter are included as requirements of s. 3(3) of O. Reg. 444/19 general animal welfare, and s. 3(6)(e) of O. Reg. 444/19. There is reason to believe that Peccary Pigs would be placed in conditions of distress if owners do not provide adequate shelter and hoof care.
Twelve (12) Domestic Small-Breed Dogs had various degrees of soiled coats (excrement around hind ends) when removed, and all long-coated dogs required grooming with several dogs having various medical concerns such as skin issues and glands issues. The findings of Dr. Farr who examined the dogs, indicated that regular and routine grooming had not been provided and several dogs were found also to have ear infections, and various degrees of dental disease, loose teeth, abscessed teeth, painful mouths, and other dental conditions. There is reason to believe that the dogs had not been provided with care necessary for their general welfare and adequate and appropriate medical attention, which is contrary to the requirements of s.3(2)(3) of O. Reg. 444/ and would be placed in conditions of distress if returned to the owners because various described health conditions would return.
25The Appellant’s position on the Decisions to Keep in Care is that:
At the time the Decisions to Keep in Care were made, the conditions that caused the animal(s) to be kept in care had ceased to exist, and/or that the return of the animals at that time would not have placed the animal(s) back into distress and/or into distress greater than that caused by the Decisions to Keep in Care. If the Board determines that the Decisions to Keep in Care are reasonable as of the date issued, the Board should then consider whether they should be revoked as of the date of the hearing or earlier pursuant to s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act.
The assessment and opinion by Dr. Cranshaw on animal condition, animal servicing, attention to animals and human interaction, and pen/enclosure cleanliness misrepresents the actual conditions, and the attention and care provided.
Enclosures and pens for animals have been prepared for the summer months and winter housing pens are not constructed due to pending details and information from AWS.
26During cross-examination, Regional Supervisor Mallory was asked for both the current condition of each animal still in care, and the status of the zoo, and questioned whether she was still of the opinion that any or all of the animals should not be returned. Regional Supervisor Mallory stated:
All the seized animals were seen by qualified veterinarians, and uninterrupted proper care has been provided to them since they were removed from the Zoo. Primates are also receiving daily interaction that is required; and
The physical conditions of the animals have improved since being removed to boarding facilities. Zebras remain in distress even though their hooves have been treated. However, their health conditions and environment have improved.
27Regional Supervisor Mallory acknowledged that certain animals have been returned to the Appellant, (the 2 New Guinea Singing dogs, 7 Porcupines, and the German Shepherd dog). Some improvements to the zoo conditions have been made, however, no clear or obvious plan from the Appellant is available for adequate space for the juvenile Eland, suitable indoor enclosure the Lemurs, and no indication of an enclosure for the Macaws.
Conclusion and Reasons to not order the return of the animals
28The Board is persuaded by the evidence and testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses that the animals were removed from an environment causing distress and the animals’ improved physical condition, behavior, and overall health is the positive result of the better-quality care provided since their removal.
29The Board finds that all the Decisions to Keep in Care are reasonable. The Respondent has demonstrated reasonable grounds that the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the care of the Appellant as its evidence showed an extended period of neglect of the animals and a lack of basic care including human interaction, and the provision of a safe, clean, and hazard-free environment by the Appellant. While the Respondent did not provide an individualized assessment of each animal, its evidence of inadequate hoof care of several species, mud-caked coats, and muscular wasting was indicative that the animals were not receiving the care required under O. Reg. 444/19 and that the basic standards of care for animals have not been provided by the Appellant and is unlikely to be provided to the animals if they are returned.
30Specifically, the Respondent provided evidence of conditions that would continue to place the animals in distress by testifying that the living conditions/outdoor space for the Elands remains too small; there is no suitable indoor enclosure for the Ring-Tailed Lemurs; no information has been provided by the Appellant about alternative arrangements for winter housing for the Macaws; and the outdoor housing for the Peccary Pigs remains incomplete even with the onset of winter weather.
31The Appellants’ lack of animal care knowledge of multiple species is evident through poor animal diet, unsanitary and poorly maintained pens and enclosures, and inadequate hoof trimming schedules on several species cannot be overlooked. The Appellant was aware of the concerns of the AWS through previous Orders issued in October and November 2021, and April 2022, and yet they did nothing to address these before the animals were removed following the compliance deadlines.
32The Appellant’s argument that COVID imposed limitations and constraints on it is acknowledged. However, there is no evidence to persuade the Board that the Appellant took measures even in the second year of the pandemic following a period of adjustment to mitigate the distress of the animals.
33The Board recognizes that the Appellant has made some improvements to the physical environment for the animals. However, these improvements were in response to Orders and issues raised by the AWS through inspections. There is no evidence to indicate commitment to a proactive plan or the assurance that improvements will be made that will mitigate or limit the conditions and environment that underlies the animal’s distress including improved animal enclosures.
34Over a prolonged period of time, the Appellant has not complied with requirements in sections 3, 5, and 6 of O. Reg. 444/19 which relates to the basic standard of care of animals, and standards of care for captive wildlife. This includes, for example, that despite the presence of zoo staff, the animals experienced a lack of necessary human interaction contrary to specific care for primates, outlined in s. 7, O. Reg. 144/19.
Should the Statements of Account be confirmed, revoked, or varied?
35Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act states that where the Respondent has provided an animal with necessaries to relieve its distress, or the CAWI has taken an animal into its care, the CAWI may from time to time serve a statement of account on the owner or custodian respecting the cost of necessaries. Under s. 35(3) of the PAWS Act, the owner or custodian is liable for the amount specified in the statement, or as otherwise specified in an order issued by the Board under s. 38(9).
36Section 38(9) of the PAWS Act states that the Board may confirm, revoke or vary statements of account served under s. 35(1), and may further order that the whole or any part of the cost to the Respondent of providing necessaries to an animal pursuant to its removal under s. 31(1), or the determination to keep an animal in CAWI’s care under s. 31(6) be paid by the owner or custodian of the animal to the Minister of Finance.
Arguments by the Parties
37The Respondent provided the following in support of the SOAs for the care, boarding, testing and examinations of the animals removed:
- Supporting invoices and details for:
i. Animal feed;
ii. Animal care;
iii. Training and enrichment for animals;
iv. Medicine, diagnostic assessment, and treatment for animals.
- Medical reports showing services provided:
i. Veterinarians;
ii. Laboratory tests;
iii. Diagnostic examinations.
38The Respondent provided revised SOAs in which the costs for transporting the animals are no longer included.
39The Appellant provided the following written list of arguments for its appeal of the multiple SOAs. The Appellant did not elaborate on these arguments, and provided no documentary support for its position:
The animals have not been provided with proper necessaries and/or with adequate care since removed by the AWS.
The amounts charged for the care of the animals in the care of the AWS including the removal are not reasonable.
There was no basis for not returning the animals on an earlier date, and costs should cease to accrue as of that date.
The removal of the animals caused distress and/or critical distress as defined under the PAWS Act; and/or the removal of the animals violated s.3 of Ontario Regulation 444/19.
The owner/custodian has an inability to pay.
SOA #1, dated June 13, 2022, for the Small-Breed Dogs
40For the reasons that follow, the panel confirms SOA #1 for a total amount of $30,637.63.
41SOA #1 was issued on June 13, 2022, to address necessaries provided to twelve Small-Breed dogs, as follows:
Boarding Costs
$ 15,840.00
Veterinary Costs (including exams, dental surgeries, blood collection, radiographs, medication), and Care services (bathing, grooming, and shaving)6
$ 13,986.88
Total Costs
$30,637.63
42Two invoices were submitted to substantiate SOA #1. The first, in the amount of $17,961.16 (HST included) was dated May 13, 2022, and included but not limited to the following services provided to all twelve Small-Breed dogs:
Boarding from April 29-May 13(15 days) at $40/dog/day
$7,200.00
Intake exams at $87.90/dog for 12 dogs
$2,812.85
IDEEXX Analysis-12 dogs/3 treatments/2 weeks
$1,887.60
Slavictine, rechecks, urine collection, Uvabet
$ 615.90
Baths at $50/dog
$ 600.00
Vaccination, and dental treatments
$3,715.85
Emergency care
$ 817.65
43The second invoice, dated May 31, 2022, was for a total amount of $12,676.47 tax included, and included an itemized list of services provided to 12 dogs and special attention to dogs 166, 167 and 168 including but not limited to:
Boarding from May 13-May 31, 2022
$8,640.00
Giardia treatment for 12 dogs
$1,424.00
Booster shots for 12/13 dogs
$ 300.00
Continued dental treatment for #166
$1,355.45
Radiograph and other treatments
$ 459.45
44The Respondent’s SOA confirmed the costs of necessaries provided to the 12 Small-Breed dogs to relieve them of distress. The boarding rates are within a $25-$50/day competitive range, and veterinarian services and exams, and health, dental and medical tests and treatment are itemized and detailed.
SOA #2, dated June 27, 2022 for the Ring-Tailed Lemurs and Peccary Pigs
45For the reasons that follow, the panel confirms SOA #2 for the total amount of $12,752.05.
46SOA #2 was issued on June 27, 2022, to address necessaries provided to four Ring-Tailed Lemurs and three Peccary Pigs, as follows:
Boarding Costs
$ 9,294.25
Veterinary Costs
$ 3,457.80
Total Costs
$12,752.05
47Three invoices were submitted to substantiate the SOA #2.
Boarding from April 29-May 31, 2022
$6,328.00
Boarding June 1-June 15, 2022
$2,966.25
Veterinarian fees including HST
$3,457.80
Transportation/staff/meals and accommodations
N/C
Veterinary calls – Equine Professional Corporation
N/C
48The costs pertaining to the care and boarding of the Ring-Tailed Lemurs and Peccary Pigs are consistent with reasonable costs and charges for necessaries, as described by the Respondent. The boarding rates are within a $25-$50/day competitive range, and veterinarian services and exams, and health and medical tests are detailed with itemized charges. The Respondent justified their choice of boarding facility was based on limited, suitable choices available for Ring-Tailed Lemurs.
SOA #3, dated June 29, 2022 for the Nilgais, Eland and Zebras
49For the reasons that follow, the panel confirms SOA #3 for the total amount of $15,245.53
50SOA #3 was issued on June 29, 2022, to address necessaries provided to the Nilgais, Zebras and Eland.
Boarding Costs
$ 8,593.00
Veterinary Costs7
$ 6,483.03
Animal Care Costs (farrier, delouse, de-worm)
$ 169.50
Total Costs
$15,245.53
51Eleven invoices in total were submitted to substantiate SOA #3 as follows:
Boarding April 29-May 31
$4,000.00
Boarding May 24-June 6 (incl. 3 hoof trim $169.50)
$2,409.50
Boarding June 7-20 (incl. 1 hoof trim $113.00)
$2,353.00
Hoof trimming: Male Zebra, 2 Nilgai, 1 Eland
Incl.
Lab charges/veterinarian charges
$10,080.18
52The costs pertaining to the care and boarding of the 2 Nilgai, 1 Eland, and 2 Zebras are consistent with reasonable costs and charges for necessaries as described by the Respondent. The boarding rates are within a $25-$50/day competitive range, and required hoof trimming is itemized and detailed.
SOA #4, dated July 7, 2022 for the German Shepherd dog
53For the reasons that follow, the panel confirms SOA #4 for the total amount of $5,882.24
54SOA#4 was issued on July 7, 2022, to address necessaries provided to the German Shepherd dog.
Boarding Costs (including special care and training)
$5,277.55
Veterinary Costs
$ 604.69
Total Costs
$5,882.24
55Four invoices were submitted to substantiate SOA #4 as follows:
Boarding and special dog care
$ 62.15
Boarding and training
$2,678.10
Boarding and training
$2,537.30
Veterinarian
$604.69
56The costs pertaining to the care and boarding of the German Shepherd dog is consistent with reasonable costs and charges for necessaries as described by the Respondent. The boarding rates specifies a $55/day rate for special care, and veterinarian services and exams, and health and medical tests are itemized and detailed.
57The German Shepherd dog was returned to the Appellant on September 2, 2022. The Board was not advised regarding the reason for the return.
SOA #5, dated July 7, 2022 for the Olive Baboon
58For the reasons that follow, the panel confirms SOA #5 for the total amount of $3,412.74
59SOA #5 was issued on July 7, 2022, to address necessaries provided to the Olive Baboon.
Boarding Costs
$2,790.00
Veterinary Costs, fecal test, and exam
$ 622.74
Total Costs
$3,412.74
60One invoice supported by invoices were submitted to substantiate SOA #5 as follows:
Boarding April 30-May 31
$1,440.00
Boarding June 1-June 30
$1,350.00
Veterinary Costs, fecal test, and exam
$ 622.74
61The costs pertaining to the care and boarding of the Olive Baboon is consistent with reasonable costs and charges for necessaries as described by the Respondent. The boarding rates are within a $25-$50/day competitive range, and veterinarian services and exams, and health and medical tests are itemized and detailed.
SOA #6, dated July 19, 2022 for the Singing Dogs
62For the reasons that follow, the panel confirms SOA #6 for the total amount of $8,588.00.
63SOA#6 was issued on July 19, 2022, to address necessaries provided to two Singing Dogs. The SOA provides the following summary costs for necessaries provided
Boarding Costs
$7,600.00
Taxes
988.00
Total Costs
$8,588.00
64One invoice was submitted to substantiate SOA #6 as follows:
Boarding incl. taxes
$7,600.00
Transportation
N/C
65The costs pertaining to the care and boarding of 2 of 4 Singing Dogs is consistent with reasonable costs and charges for necessaries as described by the Respondent. The boarding rates are within a $25-$50/day competitive range, and veterinarian services and exams, and health and medical tests are itemized and detailed.
SOA #7, dated July 19, 2022 for the Porcupines and Macaws
66For reasons that follow, the panel confirms SOA #7 for the total amount of $28,541.16.
67SOA #7 was issued on July 19, 2022, to address necessaries provided to the seven Porcupines and four Macaws.
Boarding Costs
$22,374.00
Veterinary Costs8
$ 6,167.16
Total Costs
$28,541.16
68Nine invoices were submitted to substantiate SOA #7 as follows:
Boarding May 30-July 10
$13,051.50
Boarding May 16-May 29
$ 4,350.50
Boarding
$4,350.00
Boarding
$621.50
Veterinarian
$201.71
Veterinarian
$3,959.33
Veterinarian (itemized in boarding invoice)
621.50
Veterinarian
$103.40
Veterinarian emergency
$827.49
Veterinarian
$452.00
69The costs pertaining to the care and boarding of the seven Porcupines and four Macaws is consistent with reasonable costs and charges for necessaries as described by the Respondent. The boarding rates are within a $25-$50/day competitive range, and veterinarian services and exams including emergency care and treatment are itemized and detailed.
70As of September 9, 2022, the seven Porcupines have been returned to the Appellant. The Board was not advised regarding the reasons for their return.
The Appellant’s Arguments
71The Appellant raised five arguments to support its position that the SOA should be varied or revoked (paragraph [39]). The first argument was that the animals were not provided with proper necessaries and/or care since AWS removed them. The Board has summarized extensive evidence provided by the Respondent that the animals were all provided with the necessaries to relieve them of distress.
72The Appellant’s second argument was that the amount charged for the animals in care, including the removal were not reasonable. The Appellant provided little specific argument to support this claim, with the exception of stating that hoof trimming should not have been a charge because they had a hoof-trimming machine on their property, and stating that the German Sheppard dog did not need socializing training. The Respondent submitted revised SOAs striking the cost of removing the animals.
73While the Appellant provided evidence that they have on their property a portable hoof-trimming machine, the evidence from the Respondent is clear that it was not being used by the Appellant to provide the regularly scheduled hoof trims needed.
74The Board makes note that the 600 km round trip for the German Shepherd dog for specialized behaviour training is a long trip, and notes that the Respondent provided no evidence to justify that the distance was necessary. The Board is persuaded by the Respondent’s evidence that the dog would benefit from training to improve its confidence and overcoming avoidance behaviours. In summary, regarding the claim that the costs were not reasonable, the Appellant did not provide any specific evidence to refute the SOAs, or a compelling argument to amend or rescind the statements of account on this basis.
75The third argument raised by the Appellant was that there was no basis for not returning the animals earlier, and the costs should cease to accrue as of that date. Again, the Appellant provided no evidence for this argument. The Board has noted in this decision that several animals were returned to the Appellant by the Respondent, and costs did cease for their care on the date of their return. The Board is satisfied by the Respondent’s evidence that the animals are thriving, although many are still in distress. The Board also heard the CAWI’s rationale for the Decisions to Keep in Care and accepts the that the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
76The fourth argument raised by the Appellant was that the act of removal by AWS caused distress and/or critical distress, and that the removal violated s. 3 of O.Reg. 444/19. The Board reviewed the Appellant’s written submissions, and is aware of the basis for this argument, however the information provided does not support the Appellant’s position regarding the return of its animals, nor the SOA decisions, and is furthermore outside of the Board’s jurisdiction as it is a complaint about the conduct of AWS in this matter.
77The fifth argument raised was that the Appellant lacked the ability to pay the SOAs. It provided no financial information to substantiate this argument. The Board was unable to address the argument because the Appellant provided no financial information to substantiate its claim.
Summary of Decisions
78The Board is persuaded by the evidence and testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses that the animals were removed from an environment causing distress and the animals’ improved physical condition, behavior, and overall health is the positive result of the better-quality care provided since their removal. The Decisions to Keep in Care are reasonable, and the Respondent has demonstrated reasonable grounds that the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the care of the Appellant.
79The costs pertaining to the care and boarding of the animals is consistent with reasonable costs and charges for necessaries as described by the Respondent. The boarding rates are competitive and veterinarian services and exams including emergency care and treatment where required are itemized and detailed.
ORDER
80Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act:
- The Board finds that the following animals should not be returned to the Appellant:
Zebras (2)
Domestic Small-Breed dogs (12)
Olive Baboon (1)
Ring-Tailed Lemurs (4)
Juvenile Nilgai (1)
Adult Nilgai (1)
Juvenile Eland (1)
Peccary Pigs (3)
Macaws (4)
The Board confirms SOA #1, SOA #2, SOA #3, SOA #4, SOA #5, SOA #6, and SOA #7 for a total amount of $105,059.35; and
The Appellant is ordered to pay $105,059.35 to the Minister of Finance.
Released: December 30^th^, 2022
Susan Clarke, Vice Chair
Peter Simmons, Member
Footnotes
- S.O. 2019, c. 13.
- Geddes v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONACRB 23.
- Four Macaws ID#s 182, 183, 184, 185 and seven Porcupines ID#s 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191,192 – as shown on SOA dated July 19, 2022. Reference to a Porcupine ID# 194 is attributed to a typographical error.
- The Board was not advised of any other appeals or issues in dispute to be heard at this hearing.
- The Female Zebra was determined not to be pregnant and her hooves were subsequently trimmed, on August 11, 2022.
- As part of the veterinary care, $600 of grooming, bathing, and shaving was required for the dogs and is included in this line of the SOA summary.
- A descrepancy of veterinary costs cannot be determined. The figure in the SOA is lower than the sum of the supporting invoices and is taken to be the true number.
- A descrepancy of veterinary costs cannot be determined. The figure in the SOA is lower than the sum of the supporting invoices and is taken to be the true number.