Tribunals Ontario Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Crystal Dobson Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair
For the Appellant: Crystal Dobson, Self-represented Kathy Herd, Support person for the Appellant
For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: October 4 and 10, 2024
BACKGROUND
1Crystal Dobson, the Appellant, was the owner of a female Rottweiler-type dog named Fina.
2On July 30, 2024, Inspector Shaleigh Emberson and Senior Investigator John Brown of Animal Welfare Services (AWS) removed Fina from the Appellant’s care and served a Notice of Removal (NOR) on the Appellant pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act). The NOR stated that a veterinarian advised removal was necessary to relieve Fina’s distress, which was caused by “physical abuse of Fina – striking with hand and leash about the face and forequarters requiring veterinary assessment due to sensitive tissues of ears/eyes/mouth and behavioural assessment with respect to potential psychological impacts of physical abuse sustained”.
3On August 1, 2024, a Decision to Keep (DTK) an Animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care pursuant to s. 31(6)(a) of the PAWS Act was served on the Appellant. The Appellant did not appeal the DTK.
4On August 19, 2024, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal for the NOR with the Animal Care Review Board (Board).
5On September 7, 2024, Senior Investigator John Brown personally served a Statement of Account (SOA) on the Appellant in the amount of $2,436.53, pursuant to s.35(1) of the PAWS Act for the care of Fina. Payment of the SOA was due September 27, 2024.
6The appeal deadline for the SOA was September 20, 2024. The Appellant did not appeal the SOA or pay said account. As a result, Fina was forfeited to the Crown on September 28, 2024.
7A hearing was scheduled for October 4 and October 10, 2024, to hear the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR issued by AWS.
RESPONDENTS PRE-HEARING MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL
8On October 3, 2024, just one day prior to the hearing of this appeal, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion on October 3, 2024, with the Board to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR on the grounds that the appeal was moot because the SOA had not been paid or appealed by the due date of September 27, 2024, and therefore, Fina was forfeited to the Crown on September 28, 2024, and is no longer owned by the Appellant.
9The Respondent argued that pursuant to Section 35(1) to (4) of the PAWS Act, if an SOA is not appealed or paid within the prescribed time periods, the animal(s) subject to the SOA are then forfeited to the Crown. The Respondent further argued that once animals are forfeited, the Board no longer has any remedy to offer an Appellant. Pursuant to Section 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board can only order an animal returned to its “owner or custodian”. After forfeiture, an Appellant is no longer “an owner or custodian” of the animal in question.
10We heard the Respondent’s motion to dismiss at the beginning of the hearing.
11The Appellant did not make any submission but did oppose the motion.
12After considering the submissions made, the Board denied the Respondent’s motion with written reasons to follow. These are the reasons.
13The motion was filed one day before the hearing was scheduled to begin contrary to Rule 15.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). Rule 15.2 states that “A party may have a motion heard at a case conference or hearing, provided the party files the Notice of Motion and all supporting materials with the Tribunal at lease 10 days in advance, or in accordance with any other scheduled as may be determined by the Tribunal, and services the Notice and supporting materials on all other parties.” Therefore, the motion was not filed in accordance with Rule 15.2, and had it been granted, it would have prejudiced the Appellant as they would not have had sufficient time to prepare a fulsome response.
14The Board determined that access to justice for the Appellant would have been denied if the motion was granted, as such, the Board used its discretion to hear the appeal.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
15The issue in dispute in this matter is:
- Was Fina in distress at the time of her removal on July 30, 2024? If so, was it necessary for the Respondent to remove Fina to alleviate her distress?
RESULT
16For the reasons that follow, the Board:
- Dismisses the appeal of the NOR as we find that Fina was in distress on July 30, 2024, and it was necessary to remove her from the Appellant’s care to alleviate her distress.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
17For reasons that follow, the Board finds that Fina was in distress on July 30, 2024, due to Fina being subjected to both physical and psychological abuse.
The Law
18Section 31(1) of the PAWS Act gives an animal welfare inspector the authority to remove an animal in distress from a place for the purpose of relieving its distress where (paraphrased):
a veterinarian has advised the inspector in writing that alleviating the animal’s distress necessitates its removal:
the inspector has inspected the animal and has reasonable grounds for believing the animal is in distress and the owner is not present and can’t be found promptly; or
an order respecting the animal has been made under s. 30 of the PAWS Act and has not been complied with.
19Distress is defined in s. 1(1) as a state of being:
(a) in need of proper care, water, food or shelter,
(b) injured, sick in pain or suffering, or
(c) abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.
20Section 33 of the PAWS Act allows an animal welfare inspector who is lawfully in any place and who finds an animal in distress may, in addition to any other actions the inspector is authorized to take under this Act, take any reasonable steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing the animal with necessaries to relieve its distress.
Was Fina in Distress requiring removal?
Respondent’s Submissions
21Inspector Emberson provided testimony regarding the Appellant’s previous involvement with AWS between November 2023 and July 2024 as there were at least two other occasions where AWS was called due to concerns about the well-being of Fina. However, since the Appellant was not cooperative with the AWS Inspector and did not permit them to see Fina there was no further action taken by AWS in these instances.
22The Inspector also provided a detailed recounting of the Appellant’s response to the complaint she had been dispatched to investigate on the morning of July 30, 2024., wherein two witnesses (a husband and wife) alleged that they were walking on a public trail when Fina attacked one of them, leading to the Appellant yelling at her dog and hitting her with her hand and the leash.
23On the afternoon of July 30, 2024, Inspector Emberson and Senior Investigator John Brown attended the witness’s residence to interview them. Inspector Emberson testified that the two witnesses both independently stated that they observed the Appellant striking Fina in and around the face and forequarters with her hand and leash after Fina had lunged at one of the witnesses. The witnesses stated that they believed that Fina would have bitten them had she not been wearing a muzzle. They also stated that they observed the Appellant yelling and striking Fina prior to and after the incident.
24On the same day, upon interviewing the two witnesses, Inspector Emberson testified that she contacted Dr. Robertson, Regional Veterinarian for AWS, and informed him of previous allegations of physical abuse by the Appellant towards Fina along with the eyewitness statements of the occurrence that morning.
25Inspector Emberson stated that in response to the information that she provided, Dr. Robertson issued a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animals(s) (Certificate) as this was necessary to Fina’s distress. She further stated that upon receipt of this Certificate she then issued a NOR on July 30, 2024.
26On the evening of July 30, 2024, Inspector Emberson along with Senior Investigator Brown and Constables Galbraith and Martin from the Hanover Police Service attended the trailhead location where the Appellant was believed to be living in a tent. Upon finding the Appellant Inspector Emberson testified that the Appellant advised them that Fina was aggressive and may bite them.
27Inspector Emberson further testified that she witnessed Senior Inspector Brown asking the Appellant about the reported incident of her hitting Fina that morning to which the Appellant responded, “I didn’t hit her that hard”.
28Inspector Emberson provided testimony that after removal of Fina, she was taken to Hanover Veterinarian Service for evaluation. She testified that Fina required heavy sedation to allow for the examination as Fina was very aggressive, including lunging, snarling and episodic snapping. Inspector Emberson stated that Dr. Bos, the veterinarian who performed the examination of Fina, advised her that no significant physical findings were found during the examination. However, Dr. Bosdid state that she believed that Fina was mentally quite unwell.
29Dr. Robertson testified that he issued the Certificate on his good faith belief that Fina was in distress due to physical and psychological abuse and needed to be removed and examined by a veterinarian for possible physical injuries. He stated that this was based upon the information provided by Inspector Emberson regarding AWS’s files as related to the Appellant and her dog Fina; along with the two witness statements provided on July 30, 2024, regarding the dog attack incident and the Appellant’s treatment of Fina.
30Dr. Robertson further testified that he believed that a physical examination of Fina was necessary because Fina may have received injuries to the soft tissue around her eye, lips or ears or even broken teeth from being hit. Dr. Robertson explained that any bruising, cuts, or contusions may not be obvious due to the large breed of dog and because Fina’s hair may cover any injuries. If during the physical examination any areas of suspected pain were found, then it would be necessary to shave the hair to expose the skin and enable a more detailed assessment of the possible injury.
31During the hearing Dr. Robertson explained the psychological impacts that both physical and verbal abuse can have on an animal. He testified that a dog who is hit or beaten by a random stranger will not have a lasting psychological impact. However, when a dog’s caregiver abuses them, then it is more serious and can have lasting and harmful psychological effects on the dog. He explained how companion animals are dependent on their owner to provide shelter, food, protection, exercise, and companionship, but if they are subjected to any form of abuse from the owner this creates a conflict for the animal. Since abuse is usually unpredictable it creates an element of psychological distress in the animal as they have a constant fear of their caregiver while also being dependent on them for necessities. Dr. Robertson also testified that after Fina was removed he had the opportunity to examine Fina’s records from the Hanover Veterinary Hospital1 and these supported his decision to have the animal removed.
Appellant’s Submissions
32The Appellant provided no meaningful evidence or witnesses to contradict the evidence presented by the Respondent and at times during the hearing affirmed that she did yell at Fina and strike her. By her own words the Appellant stated that “she did not hit her that hard”. The Appellant also confirmed that she did hit and yell at Fina on July 30, 2024, but said “only a little bit and not a lot”.
33In addition to the Appellant stating she did hit and yell at Fina, she also testified that she had obtained another dog and she would treat it differently.
34The Appellant stated several times throughout the hearing that she wanted to make arrangements to pay the outstanding SOA along with having Fina returned to her. However, after being advised by Respondent that this would not be possible due to the dog being forfeited to the Crown due to the non-payment of the SOA, the Appellant requested that Fina’s leash and collar be returned to her.
Analysis
35Not only did the testimony of Inspector Emberson and Dr. Robertson clearly demonstrate that Fina was subjected to both verbal and physical abuse, but the Appellant’s own admission of her yelling and hitting Fina on multiple occasions, along with another person who the Appellant had lived with also physically abusing Fina, reinforced the determination that Fina was in distress.
36We accept the Respondent’s uncontradicted evidence as outlined above, and find that the Appellant’s treatment of Fina fell squarely within the definition of distress as outlined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act, The expert witness Dr. Robertson stated that after having reviewed the medical records Hanover Veterinary Hospital, it strengthened his decision to have had Fina removed from the Appellant’s care as the records clearly indicated long-standing concerns about the Appellant’s treatment of Fina. More specifically, the Appellant was observed being physically and verbally abusive with her dog on multiple occasions when she was at the veterinary hospital. The abuse was not an isolated incident, there was clear evidence of ongoing mistreatment of Fina, which lead ultimately to her removal.
37Therefore, we find that issuance of the NOR and removal of Fina by AWS was warranted as Fina was in distress at the time of removal due to her being subjected to both verbal and physical abuse by the Appellant.
ORDER
Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board dismisses the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR.
Released: November 28, 2024
____________________________
Mark Sraga, Member
____________________________
Ziba Heydarian, Vice-chair