OACRB 2023

The appellant appealed Notices of Removal, Decisions to Keep, and a Compliance Order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding dozens of cats kept in her home.

The Board found that the removals were necessary to alleviate distress, as the home was unsanitary, past compliance orders were ignored, and a veterinarian certified the need for removal.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the cats in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would return to distress if returned, and upheld the order requiring litter substrate for the remaining cats.

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 her request for an adjournment was denied.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animal welfare inspector lawfully entered the apartment under the critical distress provisions of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, as the cats were living in unsanitary conditions without food or water.

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

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $22,191.97 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of providing necessaries to 40 cats removed from her home.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable and included cats that did not belong to her.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to show the costs were reasonable and incurred for necessaries, while the appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence to vary or revoke the statement.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account and ordered the appellant to pay the full amount.

The appellant appealed a compliance order and a notice of removal concerning 22 dogs.

The appellant was hospitalized due to an assault when the orders were issued and executed.

The Board found the compliance order was fundamentally flawed as it was addressed to an unknown person, not properly served, gave an unreasonably short compliance time, and was based on an inadequate inspection.

The Board revoked the compliance order and ordered the return of the 22 dogs and five puppies born post-removal.

The appellant appealed the removal and decision to keep in care of 63 animals from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The animals were removed after multiple inspections revealed ongoing non-compliance with orders regarding access to food, water, adequate bedding, and safe enclosures.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed back in distress if returned.

The appeal was dismissed and the Board declined to order the return of the animals.

The appellant pet store appealed a removal order, a decision to keep in care, and three statements of account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding an agama, two leopard geckos, and two common rats.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the agama was in distress and its removal was necessary due to the appellant's failure to obtain ordered veterinary care.

However, the Board found the decision to keep the leopard geckos in care was unreasonable, as their required medical treatment did not necessitate close monitoring outside business hours.

The statements of account for the agama and rats were confirmed, while the account for the geckos was varied to remove boarding costs.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog and a Statement of Account for $1,156.27 following the removal of his dog and cat.

The animals were removed due to concerns of distress, including inadequate care and inappropriate sexual touching by the appellant.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal to return the dog, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing distress had ceased to exist.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account, as the appellant did not provide evidence of an inability to pay.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of two Animal Care Review Board decisions that upheld the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep her animals in care and confirmed the Statement of Account.

The appellant argued that the Board violated procedural fairness, made errors of fact and law, heard false evidence, and failed to consider new evidence regarding her disability and alternative boarding facilities.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no errors of fact or law, and that the proposed new evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could have been obtained prior to the original hearings.

The appellant, owner of a dog sledding business, appealed a compliance order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring him to provide shelters of suitable size for his dogs.

The Board found that while the shelters were large enough to allow the dogs to lie down with their legs fully extended, they were not tall enough to permit the dogs to stand with their heads held at normal height.

The compliance order was modified to require action only with respect to shelter heights, and the completion date was extended.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed the removal of his animals and several Statements of Account for their care.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider his evidence and case law, and made erroneous findings of fact.

The Board dismissed the request, finding it had considered the evidence and law but found them irrelevant or distinguishable, and that any factual errors would not have changed the outcome.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $1,524,640.00 for the cost of necessaries (boarding) for over 200 sled dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the daily boarding rate of $20.00 per dog was reasonable and lower than the actual costs incurred.

The appellants provided no evidence to challenge the costs.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a Statement of Account for $4,696.17 for necessaries provided to his seized animals.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and fact regarding the surrender of the animals, the respondent's duty to mitigate costs, the effect of a Decision to Keep in Care, and a witness's alleged conflict of interest and perjury.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to establish any grounds under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board held that the PAWS Act does not impose a duty to mitigate costs, ownership does not transfer upon a Decision to Keep in Care, and the conflict of interest allegations were either fully canvassed at the hearing or based on evidence that could have been obtained earlier.

The appellant appealed a removal order for several animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The appellant failed to appeal the Statement of Account and failed to pay it within the prescribed time, resulting in the forfeiture of the animals to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Act.

The appellant also failed to attend the hearing.

The Board granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, finding it had no jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered the return of the appellant's cats.

The animals had since been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay a subsequent Statement of Account, rendering the return issue moot.

The Board exercised its discretion to hear the moot request and found that the original panel breached procedural fairness by considering the lawfulness of a critical distress entry without giving the Inspector notice or an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Board also found an error of law, as the animals were ordered returned without evidence that the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The reconsideration was granted, the order returning the animals was struck, and the appellant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed the decision of an animal welfare inspector to remove 24 dogs from an industrial property, the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep the dogs in care, and two statements of account totaling over $100,000 for the dogs' care.

The dogs were found in an unheated building with no food or water, and many were kept in undersized travel crates.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dogs were in critical distress, justifying their removal.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the dogs in care, as the appellant lacked a suitable location to house them, meaning they would likely be returned to distress.

The statements of account were confirmed as reasonable and necessary.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep four husky-type dogs in care and a Statement of Account for $7,301.55.

The dogs were removed from the appellant's apartment due to unsanitary conditions, high ammonia levels, and lack of exercise, which placed them in distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs would be in distress if returned to the appellant and confirmed the decision to keep them in care.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs for boarding and veterinary care to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to remove and keep her animals (dogs, a cat, and a rabbit) and the associated statement of account.

The animals were removed following an investigation prompted by complaints about their living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress on the day of the investigation, noting they were well-fed, hydrated, and generally in good health.

The Board revoked the decisions to remove and keep the animals, revoked the statement of account, and ordered the animals returned to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of providing necessaries to 14 horses removed from her property.

The appellant argued that the transportation, boarding, veterinary, and farrier charges were excessive and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board reviewed the evidence, including affidavits from the regional supervisor and the attending veterinarian, and found the charges to be reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

The Board confirmed the revised SOA in the amount of $25,126.23.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep 14 horses in care after they were removed from her property.

The horses were seized following multiple compliance orders regarding inadequate shelter and muddy paddock conditions.

The only barn on the property was subject to a municipal order prohibiting its use.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that returning the horses would place them in distress due to the ongoing lack of viable shelter and failure to improve the ground conditions.