OACRB 2022

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care under s. 44(8) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent relied on four short video clips purportedly showing the appellant abusing the dog, but failed to call the author of the videos or any witnesses with first-hand knowledge.

The Board found the video evidence unreliable and concluded the respondent failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The appeal was allowed and the dog was ordered returned to the appellant.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of two compliance orders, a Notice of Removal, and a Statement of Account, arguing they were filed outside the statutory five-business day appeal period under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board held that the appeal period is a jurisdictional issue and cannot be extended.

The appeals of the compliance orders and removal order were dismissed as late.

However, the Board found that the appeal of the Statement of Account was filed on the final day of the appeal period, varying its rules to accept an email filing after 5:00 p.m. due to the Board's fax machine being unavailable.

The motion to dismiss the appeal of the Statement of Account was denied.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care and boarding provided to his dog, which was removed from an emergency clinic after being abandoned.

The appellant argued he could not afford the care and that euthanasia should have been considered.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the dog's distress, as the treating veterinarian did not recommend euthanasia.

However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $10,802.79 to $10,352.10, removing boarding costs incurred after the appeal period for the removal had expired, at which point the dog could have been put up for adoption.

The appellant appealed the removal of her three dogs by Animal Welfare Services and a Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs.

The dogs were removed due to unsanitary and hoarded living conditions that caused them distress.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal, finding the conditions remained unsuitable for the dogs' return.

However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $1,245.00 to $262.50, noting the appellant's precarious financial situation and the respondent's lack of evidence supporting the specific costs claimed.

The appellant appealed the removal of 11 dogs, one kitten, and one rabbit from her premises by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed under a warrant after a veterinarian assessed them as being in distress due to poor living conditions, malnutrition, and physical abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found the testimony of the inspectors and veterinarians credible and concluded the animals were in distress at the time of removal.

The Board confirmed the removal, upheld the statements of account, and declined to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a compliance order requiring two dogs to be seen by a veterinarian under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, arguing the appellant was an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant.

The Board found the appellant's notice of appeal and conduct exhibited multiple indicia of an OPCA litigant, including demanding payment in gold, using abnormal address formats, and asserting a dual identity.

The Board concluded the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed it.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $58,672.98 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the removal and care of 77 cats found in distress in a rented van.

The appellant did not contest the facts of the removal or the distress of the animals, but argued she lacked the financial means to pay the account due to relying on ODSP and facing housing difficulties.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the Act does not explicitly mention ability to pay, it does not bar its consideration.

Acknowledging the severe distress of the cats but also the appellant's limited income, the Board varied the Statement of Account to $1,800, payable at $150 per month for 12 months.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after police arrested the appellant for allegedly abusing the dog.

The dog received emergency veterinary care and boarding, resulting in a Statement of Account for $1,402.53.

The appellant appealed the Statement of Account, arguing that the boarding fees were unreasonable because the dog should not have been removed.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding that the removal was necessary to relieve the animal's distress and that the veterinary and boarding costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his two dogs after they were removed due to distress.

The dogs were removed following video evidence of the appellant repeatedly hitting and kicking them.

The appellant argued his actions were based on a misunderstanding of dog training videos and sought the return of the dogs, offering to undergo training.

The Animal Care Review Board declined to order the return of the dogs, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed in distress if returned, as they would recognize the appellant as their abuser and the appellant lacked an intuitive comprehension of a dog's needs.