Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Gordon and Dawn Manning
Appellants
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
For the Appellant: Gordon and Dawn Manning Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Riel Hishon, Counsel
Heard By Videoconference: December 5, 2023
OVERVIEW
1Gordon, also known as Doug, and Dawn Manning (“appellants”) appealed two statements of account which the Board ordered be heard together. Both statements of account are for care provided to the appellants’ two dogs Tilly and Olly (the “dogs”) after they were removed from the appellants.
2The respondent removed the dogs from the appellants on October 19, 2023 pursuant to s. 31(1) (a) and (c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (“PAWS Act”) and the appellants were given a Notice of Decision to Keep an Animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care dated October 23, 2023 pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act. The appellants appealed both of these. After a hearing, their appeals were found to be unsuccessful in Board file number 15337-15364 ACRB.
3The first account is dated October 20, 2023 in the amount of $1,505.99 for veterinary costs including consultation, bloodwork, cytology, skin scraping, medication, and omega pro (“SOA #1”).
4The second account is dated November 22, 2023 in the amount of $3,104.67 for costs of necessaries provided to the dogs made up of $2,687.52 for boarding costs and $417.15 for veterinary costs for a total of $3,104.67 (“SOA #2”).
5At the hearing the appellants filed no documents, neither of the appellants testified, and the appellants brought forward no witnesses. Ms. Manning cross-examined the respondent’s witness Inspector Charlene Renaud at the hearing.
6The Notice of Appeal states the following grounds of appeal for SOA #1:
- Removal of animals did not follow protocol therefore, the statement of account is moot;
- Dr. Khanna had already cleared Tilly’s ears at our last appointment on September 14. Further testing was unnecessary.
- Inspector Renaud was fully aware that we were unable to afford testing at the September 14th appointment.
- Both dogs were under the care and treatment of Dr. Khanna in compliance with the order. Consultation and evaluation with a different vet and practice was redundant and unnecessary.
7The Notice of Appeal states the following grounds of appeal for SOA #2: “Same reason as SOA #1 plus unnecessary vet visits and treatment for issues that occurred while in care”.
8The appellants request that SOA#1 and SOA#2 be forgiven in full.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
9The issues in dispute are whether the SOA #1 and SOA #2 should be confirmed, revoked, or varied.
RESULT
10I confirm SOA #1 in the amount of $1,505.99. I vary SOA #2 in the amount of $3,104.67 by deducting $476.86, being the cost of the November 8, 2023 veterinarian consultations and treatment projection letters being $422.00 plus HST in the amount of $54.86, and confirm the balance of SOA#2 in the amount of $2,627.81.
LAW
11The PAWS Act provides in s. 35 (1): The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may, from time to time, serve on the owner or custodian of an animal a statement of account respecting any costs incurred in relation to the animal if the costs were incurred in relation to any of the following circumstances:
- An animal welfare inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress under section 33.
- An animal welfare inspector has removed the animal from the place where it was under subsection 31 (1) or (2).
- The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept the animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 31 (6) or taken the animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 44 (8). 2023, c. 12, Sched. 6, s. 8 (1).
Section 35(2) of the [PAWS Act](https