OACRB 2024

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care following its removal and subsequent surgery.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account for the dog's care within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal after forfeiture and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellants appealed decisions by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep five dogs, one cat, and one horse in care after they were removed from a moving truck in high heat without adequate food, water, or ventilation.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the appellants lacked the appropriate accommodations, boarding arrangements, and veterinary expertise to properly care for them.

The Board dismissed the appeals and declined to order the return of the animals, concluding they would be placed in distress if returned.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $4,629.40 issued by Animal Welfare Services for emergency veterinary care provided to his dog.

The dog required an emergency C-section, which the appellant could not afford, prompting the removal of the dog and the subsequent surgery.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the costs incurred were reasonable and supported by expert testimony.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $7,491.28 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to her dog.

The dog was removed from the appellant's care after she failed to comply with an order to seek veterinary treatment for the dog's broken leg, which ultimately required amputation.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding that the costs were reasonable, reflected actual necessaries provided to relieve the dog's distress, and were incurred due to the appellant's non-compliance and inability to provide proper care.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services following a complaint of physical abuse.

The Board reviewed video evidence showing the appellant physically abusing the dog and accepted expert veterinary evidence that the dog was in physical and psychological distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary to alleviate distress.

The Board further held that the conditions causing the removal had not ceased to exist, as returning the dog would cause additional psychological distress, and dismissed the appeal for the dog's return.

The appellants appealed a compliance order issued by an Animal Welfare Services inspector requiring them to take their dog, Hera, for a follow-up veterinary assessment.

The inspector issued the order because it was unclear whether the appellants had complied with previous veterinary recommendations regarding the dog's skin issues.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress at the time the order was issued, as proper care includes appropriate medical care and the inspector could not confirm if the recommended follow-up assessment had occurred.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a compliance order, dismissed an appeal of a notice of removal for 40 cats, and confirmed a statement of account.

The appellant argued the Board made errors of fact, heard false evidence from an inspector, and violated procedural fairness due to technical issues during the hearing.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or fact, no false evidence, and no violation of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed notices of removal and decisions to keep 33 cats and 3 dogs in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, as well as a statement of account for boarding costs.

The parties reached a resolution during the hearing.

The Board issued a consent order reflecting the parties' agreement that the animals would be returned to the appellant following an inspection, the statement of account would be revoked with the right to reissue, and boarding costs would cease to accrue.

The appellants appealed two statements of account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after their two dogs were removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board confirmed the first statement of account in full, finding the veterinary costs reasonable given the dogs' medical conditions.

The Board varied the second statement of account by deducting the cost of a veterinary consultation and treatment projection letter obtained for legal proceedings, but confirmed the remaining boarding and medical costs as fair and reasonable.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that varied a Statement of Account (SOA) for animal boarding and veterinary costs.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not dividing the SOA between his business and his co-appellant's business, as they were responsible for separate dogs.

The Board denied the request, finding that the issue of separate ownership or custodianship was never raised during the original hearing, and a reconsideration is not an avenue to advance new arguments.

The Board also noted it lacks statutory authority to order a precise allocation of an SOA between individuals.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that dismissed their appeals and applications for the return of their dogs, cats, and horse.

The appellants argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of law or fact, and that new evidence was available.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it did not act outside its jurisdiction, the minor factual errors made did not affect the outcome, and the alleged new evidence was available prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to remove his dog from his care.

The dog was removed after inspectors received complaints and audio recordings of the appellant yelling at, threatening, and physically striking the dog or its crate.

An expert veterinarian opined that the appellant's loud, angry outbursts and physical actions caused the dog psychological and physical distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress due to both physical and psychological abuse, and upheld the removal order.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for $68,284.85 relating to the boarding, veterinary care, and animal care of 21 horses removed due to distress.

The appellant disputed the boarding costs, arguing that indoor boarding was unnecessary and the rates were exorbitant compared to outdoor boarding.

The Animal Care Review Board found the choice of boarding facility rational given the need for immediate capacity and safety.

The Board concluded that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

The appellant's 33 Boston Terriers were removed by an inspector for non-compliance with a previous order.

The appellant filed an appeal and an Application for Return with the Animal Care Review Board.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion seeking the return of the dogs.

The Board denied the motion, finding it redundant because the Application for Return was the appropriate avenue to address the matter.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 10 cats removed from her home due to unsanitary and hoarding conditions.

The appellant argued the costs were too high and some medical tests were unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and in some cases below market value, relying on the respondent's expert veterinary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed at $14,966.81.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services after his dog was removed for failing to comply with an order to seek veterinary care for an eye condition.

The Board found that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve its distress and ensure it received required surgery.

Although the dog had already been forfeited to the Crown due to a subsequent unappealed Statement of Account, the Board reviewed the initial Statement of Account.

The Board reduced the veterinary emergency fees to align with the provincial fee guide and further reduced the total amount payable to $160.00 based on the appellant's limited ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding her cat.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the cat had been forfeited to the Crown because the appellant failed to appeal or pay a Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Board granted the motion, finding that once forfeiture occurred, the appellant ceased to have ownership rights, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animal.

The Appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of her two Great Danes due to distress and unsanitary conditions, and confirmed a Statement of Account.

The Appellant argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of fact, heard false evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Board found the Appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence or meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after her dog was removed due to allegations of physical and psychological abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, supported by eyewitness accounts of the appellant striking the dog and expert veterinary testimony regarding the psychological impacts of caregiver abuse.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for their removed animals.

The appellants argued the charges were excessive, the care was sub-optimal, and they lacked the ability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account in the amount of $17,086.36, finding that the care provided was necessary, the boarding rates and veterinary fees were reasonable and consistent with industry guidelines, and the appellants failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove an inability to pay.