Julie Nicholls v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 32

Date: 2023-01-23

Appeals under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.

Between:

Julie Nicholls

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair Edgar-André Montigny, Member

For the Appellant: Julie Nicholls, self-represented

For the Respondent: Joanna Chan, Counsel, and Lavalee Forbes (articling student, observing) Inspector Ryan Nelson, Regional Supervisor, Tracey Lapping, and Inspector Amika Gauthier (observing), Animal Welfare Services

Heard By Videoconference: December 22, 2022

OVERVIEW

1Julie Nicholls, (the appellant), has appealed a Statement of Account (SOA), in the amount of $25,226.31 issued by Inspector Ryan Nelson of Animal Welfare Services (AWS), on December 5, 2022. The SOA was issued for the purposes of recovering the costs to the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) of providing necessaries to seven horses and seven ponies (the horses) which had been removed by AWS on November 1, 2022.

2The appellant is the owner of the horses. These animals were kept by the appellant at a property at 128 Dairy Lane in Burk’s Falls (the property) that the appellant leases.¹

3Following a number of site visits and two Compliance Orders (COs) issued by Inspector Nelson pursuant to s. 30 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act)², and a Certificate of a Veterinarian advising that removal of the horses was necessary to relieve them of distress, the horses were removed on November 1, 2022 pursuant to s. 31 of the PAWS Act.

4On Nov 2, 2022 the CAWI issued a Notice of Decision to Keep in Care (Decision to Keep) pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act, for all fourteen horses removed from the Property.

5The COs and the removals are not under appeal. A separate hearing³ was held before the Animal Care Review Board (the Board) on December 16 and 19, 2022 regarding the Decision to Keep, to determine if the horses could be returned to the appellant. The parties objected to having the two matters heard together.

6In the pre-hearing conference of this matter, the parties agreed that the hearings could be held one immediately following the other, and for this reason, that the same information could be used for this second hearing. This is consistent with s. 9.1(c) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act (SPPA)⁴ which provides that two proceedings before a tribunal involving the same or similar questions of fact, law or policy may be heard one immediately after the other.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

7The issue in dispute in this matter is limited to the following:

1. Should the SOA be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

RESULT

8For the reasons that follow, the Board:

1. Confirms the SOA dated December 5, 2022 (revised on December 22, 2022) in the amount of $25,126.23.

PRELIMINARY and OTHER MATTERS

Hearing Format

9The Board’s December 12, 2022 Case Conference Report and Order confirmed that the hearing would be conducted as a hybrid hearing with evidence-in-chief entered into the hearing record through sworn affidavits. The video-conference hearing conducted on December 22, 2022 was for cross-examination and closing submissions.

Conflict of Interest

10The appellant cross-examined two of the respondent’s witnesses at length about a possible conflict of interest based on a suspected client relationship. The Board advised her to limit her questioning to the SOA.

11The Board wishes to remind the appellant that complaints regarding an animal welfare inspector are outside the jurisdiction of the Board, and that the process for such complaints is described in Part III Complaints of the PAWS Act.

LAW and ANALYSIS

Should the Statement of Account be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

The [PAWS Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2019-c-13/latest/so-2019-c-13.html)

12Section 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).

13Section 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 CAWI 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.

The SOA and Supporting Invoices

14The Appellant was served a SOA on December 5, 2022 for the care of the horses, including the following charges:

Transportation	$ 2,596.29
Boarding	$18,904.90
Veterinarian	$ 2,674.02
Animal Care	$1,051.10
TOTAL	$25,226.31

15The SOA dated December 5, 2022 was supported by a number of invoices, however a note under the Boarding Costs indicated that an additional 9 days of boarding was added at a cost of $497.20. This amount was not supported by an invoice. The SOA did not provide any indication of the dates the services covered.

16On December 22, 2022, the respondent re-issued the SOA clarifying the period the SOA covered (November 1, 2022 to December 5, 2022) and revising (reducing) the amount of veterinary costs (to $2,573.94) and the total (to $25,126.23).

Transportation charges

17The Board confirms the Transportation charge of $2,596.29 for the reasons that follow.

18The Transportation charge of $2,596.29 was supported by two invoices, summarized as follows:

Service Provider	Service and Details5	Mileage (km)	Rate	Sub-total and taxes	Total
Name Redacted	Trailering, from home station to farm, and then to Burks Falls, 6 horses	1,120	$0.98/km	$1,097.60 $142.69	$1,240.29
Name Redacted	Trip to Burk Falls, 9 horses6			$1,200.00 $156.00	$1,356.00
Total					$2,596.29

19The respondent provided the following evidence in support of the Transportation charges, from an affidavit⁷ made by Regional Supervisor Tracy Lapping:

1. Transportation of the horses from the property to a boarding facility was necessary because of the identified ongoing distress due to inadequate living conditions. Transportation was a requirement to provide the necessity of shelter and dry bedding.
2. Choosing an appropriate boarding facility was her primary decision, as one needed to be found that was appropriate and could accommodate the number of horses and their special needs (stallion, possibly four pregnant mares, and a variety of medical concerns). The transportation provider and veterinarian were secondary to the choice of boarding facility.
3. The transportation company was one of the few that were available at short notice, and that could take the horses to the boarding facility.

20The appellant submitted the following regarding the transportation costs:

1. The distance of over 600 km to a boarding facility is excessive especially considering the number of boarding facilities for horses available in Southern Ontario and the lack of services in Northern Ontario.

21During the appellant’s closing submissions, she recited numerous figures which she believed should be considered by the Board, requesting that the SOA be varied. Based on the Board’s request, she submitted the figures in written form following the hearing. She requests the Transportation costs be varied from $2,596.29 to $553.70 based on the following calculations (extracted from her submission):

250 km x $0.98/km – 2 trucks	$490.00
HST	63.70
TOTAL	$553.70

22The appellant provided no basis for the reduced distance, such as a specific boarding facility that was located 125 km away (noting 250 km is for a round trip), that was able to take fourteen horses including a stallion, and provide the care services needed. She accepted the rate of the first transport truck at $0.98/km.

23The Board notes that even if there was a facility within this distance, the appellant would have to provide evidence that it was at the same cost or less than the boarding facility her horses were taken to, or that overall, the costs as a total would be the same or less that the quantum in the SOA. The respondent submitted that the boarding facility was specifically chosen because it could address the specific needs of all of the horses, and that they were able to find transportation to the facility at short notice. It also submitted that they had a veterinarian known to them that was able to address the needs of all of the horses. The appellant may have been able to find a boarding facility within the 250 km suggested, however because they provided no evidence of one that was able to address the needs of all of the horses, its submission carries little weight.

24The Board is more persuaded by the respondent’s evidence, despite its reservations stated below (in paragraph 35) regarding the quantum of the costs. The appellant has the onus to prove why the Board should vary the costs, and it has not done so.

25In summary, the Board confirms the transportation costs of $2,596.29.

Boarding charges

26The Board confirms the Boarding charge of $18,904.90 for the reasons that follow.

27The Boarding charge of $18,904.90 (including $17,574.90 and additional specialized care costs of $1,330) was supported by six invoices, summarized as follows:

Service Provider	Number of Horses	Period	Rate	Subtotal and taxes	Total
Redacted #10200	3	Nov. 1-26 2022	$30/day Per horse	$2,340.00 $304.20	$2,644.20
Redacted #10201	Stallion	Nov. 1-26	$35.00/day + bedding ($40) +supplement ($69) +medical (5 days @ $15)	$1,094.00 $142.22	$1,236.22
Redacted #10202	3	Nov. 1-26	$30/day per horse + $15/day per horse for “medical”	$2,565.00 $333.45	$2,898.45
Redacted #10203	4	Nov. 1-26	$30/day per horse + $15/day per horse for “medical”	$3,420.00 $444.60	$3,864.60
Redacted #10204	3	Nov. 1-26	$35/day per horse + $15/day per horse for “medical” + $44/week x 3 weeks each horse for bedding	$3,351.00 $435.63	$3,786.63
Redacted #10215	14	Nov. 27-Dec. 5	$30/day per horse + Supplementary care for 4 horses @ $5/day per horse	$3,960.00 $514.80	$4,474.80
Total					$18,904.90

28The respondent provided the following evidence in support of the boarding charges, from Regional Supervisor Lapping’s affidavit:

1. In choosing a boarding facility, AWS was limited by the following factors: i. It is difficult to find a single boarding facility that can house fourteen horses; ii. The stallion included among the horses increased the risk of injury to the other horses, and needed to be kept separate from them; iii. The four pregnant mares had increased care needs; iv. Specialized expertise, increased care, and monitoring associated with the horses’ medical needs; v. The number of available boarding facilities is limited in the late Fall, because most facilities have already purchased hay for the winter based on estimated need; vi. It is difficult to find a boarding facility willing to provide short-term boarding, and also willing to provide care to the degree that is normally provided by owners (grooming, socializing, blanketing, present for veterinarian and farrier appointments); vii. Many boarding facilities don’t want government contracts because of the Government payment schedules following invoicing.
2. AWS had previously inspected the boarding facility and uses it routinely. The boarding facility met all the standards of care for the horses. Veterinarian and farrier professionals were able to provide the necessary care to the horses, as a safe handling facility was available (free of hazards, safe construction and well lit).
3. As the veterinarian had identified that the horses had rain rot lesions, one of the key veterinarian recommendations to relieve their distress and provide proper care, was to ensure that the horses were brushed, and their scabs removed at least every other day. As a result, she approved this additional treatment (called medical care costs in the invoicing) for the Boarding facility to bring on additional staff to address the lesions (30 min – 1 hr. per horse per treatment); the charges ceased once the lesions had been remedied. Specialized bedding was required for some of the horses, resulting in additional charges.
4. Following the veterinarian examinations, Regional Supervisor Lapping provided Dr. Ninness’ recommended treatment plans to the Boarding facility. The Boarding facility accordingly purchased supplements ($69), administered grooming care to treat skin conditions from rain rot (charged as “medical” at $15/day/horse) and provided specialized bedding (“shavings” $44/week).
5. AWS arranges for daily charges rather than monthly charges to facilitate return of animals to the owner mid-month if warranted; otherwise, an owner might be charged for a full month regardless of whether a full month’s charges have been incurred.
6. Boarding costs are comparable to other horse boarding facilities in the Northern region. Further, The National Farm Animal Care Council Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Equines (2013) provides a template for the minimum costs of horse ownership. It cites monthly boarding charges ranging from $250 to $1000 per horse. However, the cost of food, hay and concentrates has increased drastically, and boarding costs are estimated to have risen, ranging from $312.60 to $1250.41 in 2022 based only on inflation of these figures.

29The appellant submitted that the boarding charges were excessive and that the add-on charges were not warranted. She provided a document of advertisements for various boarding facilities downloaded from the internet

30During the appellant’s closing submissions, she recited numerous figures which she believed should be considered by the Board to vary the SOA quantum. Based on the Board’s request, she submitted her calculations in written form following the hearing. She requests the Boarding costs be varied from $18,904.90 to $7,627.50. She provided the following to substantiate her request (extracted from her submission), based on the figures obtained during her internet search:

3 horses require full/indoor boarding @ $750 each (monthly charge)	$2,250.00
10 horses require outdoor boarding @ $400.00 each (monthly charge)	$4,000.00
1 horse requires hybrid (access to a stall) @ $500.00 (monthly charge)	$500.00
Sub-total	$6,750.00
HST	$877.50
TOTAL	$7,627.50

31The appellant estimates were based on a one-month period rather than the five-week period covered by the SOA, which was the length of time the horses were boarded. Based on the appellant’s estimate for four weeks, the same rate would cost $9,534.38 for a five-week period.

32The Board notes that the appellant did not address the additional grooming, supplements or special bedding provided by the boarding facility, as recommended by the veterinarian, and approved by Regional Supervisor Lapping to be conducted by the boarding facility. This was calculated by the respondent to be an additional $1,330.00.

33The Board reviewed the evidence from both the respondent and the appellant and notes the following:

1. The base boarding rate for each horse is $30/day. Four horses, including the stallion had a base rate of $35/day. This amounts to approximately $900 - $1,050/month per horse.
2. Additional charges (“medical”) of $15/horse/day, for a short period of time for additional brushing and to remove scabs. An additional charge was incurred for specialized bedding of $44/week per horse, for some horses. A supplement was provided to all the horses ($69 total).
3. The appellant provided potential boarding costs to the owner starting at $400/month for outdoor (with stall in inclement weather or illness, likely for additional charges) (Southern Ontario) and starting at $500/month (Southern Ontario) and up to $1500 for indoor boarding. She assessed her horses for what type of boarding she felt was appropriate for them (paragraph [28]).

34It appears that the appellant has given some thought to whether her horses could be boarded indoors, outdoors or in a hybrid facility based on their needs. The appellant’s evidence shows that there are different types of boarding common in the industry. When the appellant cross-examined Regional Supervisor Lapping, the Board heard that the horses are primarily boarded outdoors as appropriate but had access to run in sheds (3-sided structures, not stalls).

35The Board was not told if the horses had stalls assigned to them, or if the three horses identified by the appellant as needing indoor boarding, were receiving indoor boarding. The respondent did not provide an Affidavit from the boarding facility, and so there was no opportunity to cross-examine a representative as to whether the horses were provided indoor, outdoor or hybrid boarding. The Board finds that this affects the strength of the respondent’s case when it brings no evidence forward to support the invoices. While the invoices are detailed, they still lack sufficient detail to make a comparison with other service providers, particularly when considering the type of boarding provided.

36That being said, the onus lies on the appellant to prove that the SOA should be varied or revoked. The appellant had an opportunity to, but did not seek additional evidence from the boarding facility.

37The Board acknowledges that there is variation between the respondent’s invoices for boarding, and that quoted by the appellant in her evidence. The Board finds that the boarding charges are more in line with indoor boarding fees, and consistent with the upper end of the 2022 range quoted by Regional Supervisor Lapping. The boarding fees are certainly very high if the horses are being boarded outside.

38Regional Supervisor Lapping submitted that the charges are comparable to northern boarding rates. The Board questions why AWS could not have boarded the horses south of the appellant’s property even if it meant finding more than one boarding facility to meet the needs of all the horses. This is part of the larger question – there was no evidence submitted by the respondent to justify that the only available boarding facility was 600 km away, and to the north. Ontario has numerous areas where there are horse farms, and presumably places where boarding is available. The respondent provided no evidence to support that they researched other horse boarding facilities within a 600 km radius, in all directions from the appellants’ property in Burk’s Falls (Parry Sound District), for available boarding spots, ability to take on a stallion and pregnant mares, and for pricing. As the basis for the appeal is reasonableness of costs, the Board agrees with the appellant that the costs for boarding appear to be high.

39However, the Board nonetheless is more persuaded by the respondent’s evidence and submissions, than by the appellants, and accepts the base boarding costs ($30 and $35/day/horse) despite the limitations of the evidence.

40The Board also accepts the additional care costs, noting that normally a horse’s owner provides this care. There is an additional cost for care that must be provided when an animal is seized, and the owner is unable to care for it. The appellant raised some good points regarding the additional brushing, and that the horses would not have received it until after the vet examined them on November 21st, however the charges were for 5 days of this specialized grooming within the SOA period.

41In summary, on the balance of probabilities, the Board confirms the Boarding charges, and the associated additional care costs, of $18,904.90.

Veterinarian charges

42The Board confirms the Veterinarian charges of $2,573.94, for the reasons below.

43The Veterinarian charge (revised) of $2,573.94 was supported by two invoices, with a note that the revision was based on deducting lines 6 and 7 from invoice 8. The veterinarian costs are summarized as follows:

Service Provider	Service	Number of horses	Rate each	Sub-Total and tax	Total
Redacted #1426	Equine exam	11	$90.30
	Rectal ultrasound	4	$50.00
	AHL Fecal egg count	3	$33
	Sedation	2	$64.95
	Radiographs	1 (Loud N)	$275.60
	Other		$185.30	$1,883.10 $244.81	$2,127.91
Redacted #1340	Equine exam	3	$90.30
	Rectal exam	1	$47.51
	Other		$76.30	$394.71 $51.32	$446.03
TOTAL					$2,573.94

44The respondent provided a sworn affidavit from Dr. Marcie Ninness, veterinarian, specializing in equine care. In her affidavit, Dr. Ninness stated that she had been the attending veterinarian at the boarding facility after the horses had been removed. She stated the following based on examinations made on November 2 and 21, 2022:

1. She explained that the November 2, 2022 visit was limited to examinations of three horses identified by Regional Supervisor Lapping as more urgent to examine; the routine examinations of all the horses were conducted on November 23, 2022, as well as follow-up examinations of the three were warranted.
2. Most of the horses had skin scabs covering the dorsal surfaces of their body (neck, back and rump) commonly referred to as “rain rot”.
3. A few horses also had “pastern dermatitis”, commonly known as “mud fever”.
4. She recommended a change in nutrition and management to improve skin health and recommended brushing the horses and removing scabs at least every other day.
5. Many of the horses had additional health complications including potential gastrointestinal parasites and dental issues. Where gastrointestinal parasites were suspected, a fecal egg count was taken. Horses that were exposed to the stallion or a male colt were checked for pregnancy.
6. She explained medical conditions found during the routine examinations, and each invoiced charge as related to the conditions. Dr. Ninness noted that all horses were put on probiotics.

45The appellant indicated that tests were not warranted either for healthy horses, or for horses in poor health. She did not believe that both rectal examinations and ultrasound tests were necessary for assessing fetuses. In her submission of what the Veterinarian costs should be, it appears that she accepted the full cost of the November 2, 2022 visit where the veterinarian examined the three horses identified by AWS as needing more immediate attention, and she accepted the three fecal tests for horses suspected of parasitic infections. She did not accept routine medical examinations, follow-up examinations or any of the other tests or examinations.

46The appellant submitted that the veterinarian charges were excessive, and for the most part, unnecessary. She submitted that most of the information AWS was trying to gain from the exams was information the owner could have provided or could have been avoided if AWS had followed instructions the owner provided, or could have been consulted on.

47During the appellant’s closing submissions, she requested the quantum of the SOA be varied based on figures she provided. Based on the Board’s request, she submitted her calculations in written form following the hearing. She requests the Veterinarian costs be varied from $2,573.94 to $111.87⁸. She provided the following to substantiate her request (extracted from her submission):

Vet Bill, November 2, 2022	$446.03
3 fecal tests (@ $33.00 each)	$99.00
Sub-total	$545.03
HST	$70.85
TOTAL	$615.88

48The Board reviewed the evidence of the two parties, including the Medical Records of Dr. Ninness’ evaluations of each horse, and her explanation of the invoiced charges, and the appellant’s comments. The Board also reviewed the oral cross-examinations of both parties, noting that for the most part the appellant was seeking justification for the charges, particularly the x-rays of the stallion and pregnancy examination and testing, as well as the need for sedation to facilitate examination. The Board found Dr. Ninness’ explanations provided a reasonable basis for the charges.

49The Board noted the following:

1. The appellant provided no medical records for the horses to AWS indicating that the horses had annual examinations. The veterinarian acknowledged that the outcome of tests would determine the care to be provided where a medical issue was identified.
2. The veterinarian noted that it is standard procedure to perform an equine exam if there are no records. At the same time, it appears that AWS did not ask the appellant for her medical records.
3. The veterinarian identified that most of the horses had rain rot and in some cases mud fever, and noted that many of the horses lacked dental health.
4. AWS removed the costs of treating the bruise of one of the horses, as this may have occurred while in AWS’ care.

50The Board notes that s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act speaks to the liability of the owner of the horses for expenses incurred for necessaries to relieve distress of the animals seized. As the removal was identified as related to distress identified primarily because of the lack of shelter, and the lack of care (coat care for rain rot and mud fever), we do question the extent of the veterinarian examination and tests. The veterinarian identified that some horses may need dental care, and used testing to date the gestation period of the mares, but it is not clear how these related to necessaries to relieve distress.

51The Board is more persuaded by the respondents’ submissions, than by the appellants’ however, and on the balance of probabilities accepts the Veterinarian costs as necessaries to relieve distress, albeit that some of the conditions were identified after removal. The appellant requested the SOA for veterinarian charges be varied, suggesting the charges be limited to the November 2, 2022 visit and the fecal tests. She did not take into account the examinations that were necessary to arrive at the need for the parasite testing, nor the examinations that were necessary to evaluate the herd for skin conditions and provide treatment recommendations, nor the examinations necessary to evaluate the mares for pregnancy or suspected pregnancy, nor the examinations of other horses to evaluate for medical conditions that were identified after their removal from her property. In all, there were only four horses that were examined that didn’t have medical conditions, however they all had skin conditions related to rain rot that required care.

52The Board confirms the amended Veterinarian charges totaling $2,573.94 on the basis that the charges were reasonable, particularly as there was a lack of historical veterinarian care, potentially four mares in foal, and issues with rain rot and mud fever, and body condition score (underweight, overweight) issues with several horses, and other medical conditions. The Board is satisfied that Dr. Ninness’ rates are in keeping with the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association 2021 Suggested Fee Guide for Large Animal Procedures, as she testified.

53In summary, on the balance of probabilities, the Board confirms the Veterinarian charges of $2,573.94.

Animal Care

54The Board confirms the Animal Care charge of $1,051.10 for the reasons that follow.

55The Animal Care charge of $1,051.10 was supported by two invoices, summarized as follows:

Service Provider	Service	Number of horses	Rate each	Sub-Total and tax	Total
Redacted #132 Date unknown	Farrier work	8	$65	$520.00	$520.00
Redacted #028 Nov. 7/22	Trims	6	$65
	Standby time	4 hrs.	$20	$470.00 $61.10	$531.10
TOTAL					$1,051.10

56The respondent provided the following evidence in support of the Animal Care charges, from an affidavit made by Regional Supervisor Tracy Lapping (Affidavit paras. 23 - 25):

1. She identified that the horses’ hooves were overgrown, long in the toe, low heels and angles which were incorrect.
2. Two farriers were called, and attended on November 7, 2022 to provide trims to all fourteen horses.
3. The farriers incurred standby time as there was idle time between horses to allow for the horses to relax and adjust to their surroundings.
4. Farriers charged $65/trim and $20/hour for standby time.

57The respondent did not provide an affidavit from the farriers to explain their charges, although the respondent stated that the costs were within the normal range.

58The appellant submitted the following regarding the farrier treatment and charges:

1. The choice to change angles drastically likely caused stressors, pain and injury to the horses since there is no indication of follow-up care after the trimming. “Also lack of education in angles if you think 50 degrees is not the achievable result”.
2. “A 4-hr standby is due to lack of experience or practices that are causing distress so they sedate horses that children use at fairs”.

59During the appellant’s closing submissions, she recited numerous figures which she believed should be considered by the Board in varying the Animal Care charges on the SOA from $1,051.10 to $711.90. Based on the Board’s request, the appellant submitted her calculations in written form following the hearing. She provided the following to substantiate her request (extracted from her submission):

14 horses @ $45.00 each	$630.00
HST	$81.90
TOTAL	$711.90

60The appellant provided no evidence (e.g., receipts) to support her claim that farrier trims cost $45 each, nor that her farrier did not have standby time.

61The respondent provided evidence to substantiate that farrier trim costs of $65 per trim is reasonable, stating that the National Farm Animal Care Council Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Equines, 2013 provides that a farrier can cost between $25 - $50 every 6 to 8 weeks, and that indexed to inflation this amounts to $30 to $65 in 2022. She justified the charges stated that in this matter the hoof trims were complex, and the fees incurred were reasonable based on the rates accepted by the industry.

62The Board notes that the standby time of 4 hours was charged by only one of the two farriers, for trimming the hooves of six horses.

63The Board is more persuaded by the respondent’s evidence and submissions, than by the appellants’, and on the balance of probabilities accepts the Animal Care costs as necessaries. The varied charges the appellant suggested was based on an unsubstantiated farrier rate, and she did not take into account a reasonable amount of standby time even though the respondent articulated why this was necessary.

64In summary, the Board confirms the Veterinarian charges of $1,051.10.

ORDER

65Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board:

1. Confirms the SOA dated December 5, 2022 (revised on December 22, 2022) in the amount of $25,126.23.

Footnotes

1. 1The appellant does not live at the property.
2. 2S.O. 2019, Ch. 13
3. 3File 14411/ACRB
4. 4R.S.O. 1990, Ch. S22
5. 5The number of horses add up to 15 horses, which is an error. When questioned regarding this, the respondent noted that the costs were not based on the number of horses, but on the mileage rate charged.
6. 6The invoice did not provide any mileage or other rate information.
7. 7Respondent’s Document Brief, Affidavit of Regional Supervisor Tracy Lapping, paras 7 – 14.
8. 8The appellant’s submissions indicated an evaluated HST of $12.87, and a Total Veterinary cost of $111.87. The Board corrected these mathematical errors in the Table.