OACRB 2023

The appellant appealed a statement of account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for his seized animals, including rabbits, horses, and chickens.

The appellant raised numerous grounds of appeal, including financial hardship, alleged surrender of the animals, and claims that the costs were excessive and disproportionate to the animals' value.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding the costs were necessary and reasonable based on the evidence of the boarding facility manager, the inspector, and the respondent's expert veterinarian.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the reduced amount of $37,424.44 and denied the appellant's request for costs.

The appellant appealed the removal of 41 cats from her apartment, the decision to keep them in care, and a statement of account for their care.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing, and the Board proceeded in her absence.

The Board found that the warrantless entry was justified due to critical distress, as the cats were living in unsanitary conditions without food or water while the appellant was in police custody.

The Board declined to return the animals, finding they would be at risk of distress, and confirmed the statement of account for $23,969.95.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after five dogs were removed from his residence.

The dogs were removed following complaints and video evidence showing the appellant repeatedly striking the dogs, which an expert veterinarian concluded caused physical and psychological distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that the removal was necessary and lawful.

The Board dismissed the appeal and ordered that the dogs not be returned to the appellant.

The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss three appeals filed by the appellant pet shop owner regarding animal removal and care orders.

The respondent argued the appeals were filed after the five-day statutory deadline under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals, finding it has no statutory jurisdiction or discretion to extend the timeline for filing appeals or to accept incomplete notices of appeal.

The appellant appealed a compliance order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the care of several captive wildlife species at his facility.

The Board found that the animals were in distress because their enclosures were too small to allow for natural movement and exercise, and they lacked adequate enrichment.

The Board confirmed the compliance order but extended the deadline for compliance by 30 days to allow for the construction of outdoor enclosures.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that revoked the removal of the appellant's animals and ordered their return.

The Inspector argued the Board erred in law by misinterpreting the definition of 'distress' under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act and made errors of fact and procedural fairness.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it applied the correct legal test for distress, made no significant factual errors, and conducted a fair hearing.

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Board decision confirming a decision to keep his dog in care and a statement of account.

The Board found that the appellant's grounds did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

Following a meeting with the parties, the Board concluded that the appellant had mistakenly filed a request for reconsideration instead of an application for revocation of determination to have his dog returned.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed Statements of Account for the care of 27 dogs removed from her home.

The Appellant sought reconsideration on all four grounds under Rule 18.2 but failed to provide any particulars or evidence to support her claims.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the request should be granted.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Removal and a Decision to Keep an Animal in Care regarding their two dogs, which were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to untreated chronic skin conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the appellants had failed to comply with multiple compliance orders requiring them to obtain and follow veterinary recommendations, citing financial constraints.

The Board confirmed the removal and the decision to keep the dogs in care, concluding that returning the dogs to the appellants would likely result in them being placed immediately back in distress due to a lack of necessary veterinary care.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Keep in Care Decision, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the removal of four cats from her home.

The Board found that the cats were in distress due to the appellant's failure to comply with previous compliance orders requiring her to repair her ceiling, provide a sanitary environment, and seek veterinary care.

The Board upheld the removal and the decision to keep the cats in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed in distress if returned.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account for $17,172.50 for the costs of providing necessaries to the removed cats.

The appellant appealed the removal of her dog, a decision to keep the dog in care, and a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed after the appellant failed to comply with orders to have the dog re-examined by a veterinarian and to stop tethering the dog outdoors.

The Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, that removal and keeping the dog in care were necessary to alleviate distress, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs was confirmed.

The appellant pet store owner appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary care provided to an iguana that had been abandoned at his store.

The appellant argued he was not the owner or custodian of the animal.

The Animal Care Review Board found that by keeping, feeding, and maintaining the iguana for approximately a week, the appellant met the definition of a custodian under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the veterinary charges to relieve the animal's distress were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a statement of account for animal care costs in the amount of $37,424.44.

The appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated procedural fairness, and made errors of law and fact.

The Vice-Chair found no bias, procedural unfairness, or significant errors, except for a minor factual error regarding the date the appellant's liability for care costs ended following the forfeiture of the animals.

The decision was varied to deduct $307.00 for one day of care, resulting in a total payable amount of $37,117.44.

The balance of the reconsideration request was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in Care and a Statement of Account regarding his dog, Chester, who was removed by Animal Welfare Services due to an untreated eye infection and later diagnosed with lymphoma.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the conditions causing the dog's removal had not ceased to exist, as the appellant lacked the financial means and suitable housing to provide necessary medical care, meaning returning the dog would place him in distress.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account for $2,413.78, finding the expenses for emergency veterinary care and medical boarding were necessary and reasonable.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision dismissing her appeal of a Keep in Care Decision.

The original appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to appeal or pay a Statement of Account, resulting in the forfeiture of her animals to the Crown by operation of statute.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, as she provided no relevant evidence or explanation connecting her claims to the required criteria.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) after 47 dogs were removed from his property.

AWS executed a search warrant and found the dogs living in unsanitary, poorly lit, and inadequately ventilated conditions with high ammonia levels.

A veterinarian certified that the dogs were in distress and required removal.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act and that their removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding eight dogs removed from their property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal due to heat exhaustion, lack of water, and unacceptable housing conditions, and that their removal was necessary.

The Board dismissed the appeal for the return of the dogs, finding insufficient evidence that the conditions causing the distress had been corrected.

The Board varied the Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs from $5,149.86 to $5,025.56 to account for a vaccination and heartworm test that had already been administered to one of the dogs.

The appellant appealed decisions by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her animals (dogs and a kitten) in care and the associated statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed from the appellant's home due to unsanitary conditions, including garbage, debris, feces, and urine, which placed the animals in distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal and the decisions to keep the animals in care were justified under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Board also confirmed the statements of account, finding the veterinary and care costs to be reasonable and necessary.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account totaling over $66,000 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care of 14 equines removed from her care.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing and provided no evidence to support her appeals.

The Board accepted the respondent's uncontested affidavit evidence demonstrating that the costs for boarding, veterinary care, and other necessaries were reasonable and necessary.

The Board confirmed both Statements of Account.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account (SOAs) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 43 cats removed from her home due to distress and non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to show the costs were incurred for necessaries to relieve the cats' distress and were reasonable.

The appellant failed to prove the SOAs should be varied or revoked.

The Board confirmed both SOAs, ordering the appellant to pay a total of $24,970.01.