Upneet Sagoo v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 92

Date: 07/18/2024

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

Between:

Upneet Sagoo Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Order Made By: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Upneet Sagoo, Appellant Shaun Harvey, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel Kateryna Toderishena, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: May 8 and 10, 2024

Closing Submissions: May 23, 2024

A. BACKGROUND

Current Appeal

1Upneet Sagoo, the Appellant, is the owner of 39 cats (six born in care) and one dog “Spud” that were the subject of seven Orders issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS), on February 26, 2024 (the “Orders”), pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13. (PAWS Act).

2The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector is the Respondent to this appeal.

3The Appellant owns a cattery where she breeds and sells cats for her livelihood at her property located in Waterloo, Ontario (“Property”). On December 15, 2023, AWS attended the Property and served a Notice of Removal (NOR) on the Appellant as a number of felines and the canine Spud were found to be underweight, have matted coats, living in unsanitary conditions, and in need of ongoing medical care.

4Pursuant to the NOR, a veterinarian advised that the animals were in distress and needed to be removed. Upon removal, the animals were kept at two different sites, Georgian Triangle Humane Society (GTHS) and Dogwood Animal Sanctuary (DWAS).

5Various orders were issued, and the Appellant filed multiple appeals with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) for these orders, which included the NOR, two Decisions to Keep in Care (DTK) - one for the animals and the second for kittens that were born in AWS’ care, and a Statement of Account (SOA). All of these previous matters were scheduled to be heard together on February 16, 2024.

6During the hearing of Board File Nos 15531, 15582, 15585, and 15587, the parties arrived at a settlement and an Amended Consent Order was issued by the Board dated February 27, 2024 (the “Consent Order”), summarizing the terms of the agreement as follows:

(a) AWS revokes the statement of account, with the right to reissue. Discussion will take place with the appellant before re-issuing.

(b) The parties are expressly preserving the Appellant’s right to challenge the lawfulness of the initial removal of the animals in any future SOA appeal.

(c) Boarding costs under the SOA will cease to be billed as of today (February 16, 2024), AWS will not bill for boarding costs that may accrue after February 16, 2024.

(d) AWS will conduct an inspection of the Appellant’s home on Feb 20 or 21 to confirm the conditions of the home. All the animals in care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) will be returned by AWS to the appellant no later than February 23, 2024. An order under Section 30 of the Act will also be issued by AWS on the date of the return of the animals. A draft order will be provided by AWS at least 48 hours before the issuance of the order by AWS.

(e) Ms. Sagoo expressly consents to entry for reinspection after return of the animals, at such times and dates that are requested by AWS, provided that AWS gives at least 24 hours’ notice in writing, or on the compliance dates as outlined on the order under section 30, as referred to in paragraph (4) of this order. Consent to enter expires 10 days after the compliance date on the Order.

(f) AWS undertakes to provide Ms. Sagoo with all previously undisclosed medical documents held by AWS or agents acting under their direction. Documents are to be provided via SYNC no later than 10 days from the date of return of the animals.

7Pursuant to the Consent Order above, the Respondent agreed to return the animals so long as various conditions were met including issuance of further Orders under Section 30 of the PAWS Act.

8On February 26, 2024, upon the animals’ return, Regional Supervisor Eloise Jones (Supervisor Jones) issued the subject Orders requiring the Appellant to take various action(s) regarding the animals’ diet, litter, grooming, and veterinary care within certain timelines.

9In brief, the Orders (which were all issued together in Appendix B of a single document) pertained to the 39 felines (6 born in care) and the canine Spud:

1. Orders 1A - E provides parameters for general care of all 39 felines;
2. Orders 2 - 6 have specific requirements for certain felines with various medical concerns; and
3. Order 7 had specific requirements for the care of the canine Spud.

10The Appellant appealed the Orders to the Board on February 29, 2024.

11The appeal proceeded by way of a video hearing on May 8 and 10, 2024 (Hearing), and closing submissions were received by the parties on May 21, 2024.

B. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Appellant’s witnesses

12At the outset of the hearing, I asked the Appellant’s representative Mr. Harvey how many witnesses would be testifying, and he advised that his client Ms. Sagoo might testify in her own case, but wished to remain silent until hearing the Respondent’s witnesses testify first.

13In response to this, the Respondent expressed concerns that the Appellant was revisiting an issue that was already discussed at the case conference and the right to remain silent did not apply as Ms. Sagoo is not a defendant in the case; she is the Appellant and must present evidence in support of her case. The Respondent also argued that this should have been raised by way of a motion prior to the hearing date.

14The Appellant, in reply, argued that an Order made by AWS is more akin to a prosecution and once the Order is challenged then the state must argue why the Order should be upheld as they have substantial resources from the state unlike the Appellant who is being deprived of her livelihood from the issued Order.

15I was not compelled by the Appellant’s argument that she had a right to remain silent as it is her appeal at stake. The right to remain silent as protected under s. 11( c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly applies to criminal and penal proceedings where individual liberty is at stake, and that the Board's proceedings are civil proceedings.

16I held the parties to the parameters set out in the case conference report and order dated April 25, 2024 (CCRO), which required that any documents including a written summary of any witness’ anticipated evidence be disclosed on or before 12:00pm on May 1, 2024, and the final book of documents with will say statements be filed with the Board by 12:00pm on May 3, 2024.

17In the section of hearing details, the CCRO stipulated that the Appellant listed its only proposed witness as Ms. Sagoo herself and it stated that if the Appellant is called, she would require 1-1.5 hours to testify. However, no will-say statements were ever filed by the Appellant within the deadlines and if Ms. Sagoo wished to testify, she was required to disclose her anticipated testimony to the Respondent as ordered in the CCRO. Without a will-say statement, it would be prejudicial to allow the Appellant to testify at this late stage in the proceedings and a motion would have been required to dispute this.

Respondents Request for Witness Statements to be Marked as Exhibits

18The Respondent requested that the witness statements be marked as exhibits as they were lengthy and it would allow the oral testimony to be shortened.

19The Appellant objected to this request, stating that these were will-say statements, not affidavits, and that they should be given no weight. The Appellant argued that while the statements could be marked as exhibits, unless there was oral testimony then the Board should not consider them as part of the evidence.

20The Respondent replied that they tried to reach out to the Appellant’s representative during the week preceding the hearing to discuss this request and streamline the process, but he had not replied.

21I allowed the witness statements to be marked as exhibits. Still, I requested that the Respondent ask their witnesses to speak to any specific points they wished to draw the Board’s attention given that the will say statements are unsworn statements and the Appellant should be afforded an opportunity to cross examine on this evidence.

C. ISSUES

22Were the animals in distress at the time the combined Orders dated February 26, 2024, were issued?

23Should the Orders be confirmed, revoked, or modified?

D. RESULT

24For the reasons that follow:

(a) I find that the animals were in distress at the time the Orders were issued;

(b) Order 1D is revoked; and

(c) Orders 1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, and Orders 2 -7 are confirmed.

E. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Appellant’s Position

25The Appellant argued that the animals were not in distress as contemplated by s. 30(1) of the PAWS Act at the time of return, and as such there was no basis for issuing the combined Orders dated February 26, 2024.

26The Appellant also claimed that the requirements in the combined Orders are forward-facing and cannot be said to be issued for the purpose of relieving the animals’ distress.

27Lastly, the Appellant submitted that AWS does not have jurisdiction to issue the Orders as there are no specific standards for a “cattery operation” required in the PAWS Act or Regulations and there is no authority for making non-necessary medical orders. The Appellant maintains that regardless of the agreement between the parties, the legislative requirements for issuing orders under the Act must still be met.

Respondent’s Position

28The Respondent states that as part of the settlement of prior appeals, AWS agreed to return the animals conditional on being able to issue Orders to address ongoing health concerns for some of the animals, and other regulatory requirements for care to ensure the cats would not be placed in further distress.

29In response to the Appellant’s three grounds of appeal, the Respondent’s position is as follows:

(a) The Respondent presented evidence that the animals were in various forms of distress upon their return, and pursuant to the settlement agreement both parties agreed that future orders would be issued, and compliance checks completed.

(b) Each item in the Order addresses various forms of “distress” that the animals were in once returned to the Appellant’s care and the PAWS Act does in fact contemplate that orders can be forward-facing.

(c) The Orders meet the reasonable grounds test under s.30(1) of the PAWS Act, and were therefore issued with proper jurisdiction.

Analysis

Issue 1- Were the animals in distress at the time the Orders were issued?

30For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the animals were in distress at the time the Orders were issued because some of the animals had underlying health concerns, and further, the conditions in which the animals were living at the Property do not meet the required standards under the PAWS Act and Regulations.

31Section 1 of the Act defines distress as the 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

32Section 3 of the Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements Regulations (O.Reg. 444/19) (Regulations) spells out the basic standard of care for all animals and states that every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate food and water, care for its general welfare, a proper resting and sleeping area, sanitary conditions, protection from the elements, and adequate space, light and ventilation.

33Owners of animals are required to comply with the minimum standards prescribed in the PAWS Act and Regulations. Failure to comply with the standard of care as set out in the Regulations has been found to constitute “distress” for the purposes of the PAWS Act.¹

34Section 30(1) of the PAWS Act states that where an animal is found to be in distress, an animal welfare inspector may order the owner or custodian to take certain action(s) that may be necessary to relieve the animal of this distress.

35Pursuant to section 38(1) of the PAWS Act, owners of animals can appeal an order from an animal welfare inspector to the Board, and according to section 38(9) of the PAWS Act, after a hearing the Board has the power to confirm, revoke or modify an order made under section 30.

The animals were in distress.

36The Board finds that the animals were in distress when the Orders were issued as they had ongoing health issues, and the conditions in which the animals were living at the Property do not meet the required standards under the PAWS Act and Regulations.

37The Appellant argued that there was no evidence that the animals were in a state of distress when they were returned and therefore there was no basis for issuing the subject Orders.

38The Respondent provided evidence that the animals faced various forms of distress, including ongoing health issues and lack of proper care, based on the testimony and reports of two veterinarians, Dr. Stephanie Dam and Dr. Nicola Jackson, as well as the testimony of Inspector Rachel Falls and Regional Supervisor Eloise Jones. The Respondent also relied on various documents admitted as exhibits including reports and notes, various orders, statements, expert reports, medical records, and will-say statements that included photos of the animals that had been taken by AWS.

39The Appellant objected to the Respondent questioning witnesses about the state of the Property upon removal, or anything predating the subject Order. However, I allowed this evidence to proceed as it formed the basis for the Order and AWS’ determination of distress. Furthermore, according to the Consent Order dated February 27, 2024, the parties agreed to preserve the Appellant’s right to challenge the lawfulness of the initial removal of the animals in any future appeals, so this condition undoubtedly invites testimony regarding the history between the Appellant, AWS, and her care of the animals.

40Dr. Stephanie Dam was the primary veterinarian to provide care for 12 cats and 3 dogs, as well as 4 nursing kittens (born in care on December 25, 2023), during their time at GTHS between December 15, 2023, to February 26, 2024. Dr. Dam testified that most of the cats she examined in December 2023 were underweight with a body score of between 1-3 on the 9-point scale, they had severe matting of their coats, and the canine Spud was urine soaked and had overgrown hair with ties that had been left in for an extended period of time.

41All the animals had full intake exams which confirmed the low body scores. They were subject to intake protocols (including deworming and vaccination), and Dr. Dam noted that upon feeding, they all ate ravenously. Dr. Dam confirmed the animals all suffered from varying degrees of dehydration, mild to severe dental disease/gingivitis, extreme matting of their coats (in one case surgical intervention was required), and the canine Spud had serious urine scalding around the groin area from wearing a diaper. Dr. Dam also noted that the felines emitted an odour that is associated with chronic constipation.

42Dr. Dam explained the various underlying causes that could contribute to the animals’ low body scores: malnutrition, malabsorption, chronic disease or severe dental disease. Upon examination, she ruled out dental disease since the animals all ate well upon feeding. Also, malabsorption was ruled out because the weight of the animals increased upon feeding. There was no evidence of chronic disease in any of the animals, and she therefore determined that the low body scores were most likely caused by malnutrition, in other words, lack of feeding. Dr. Dam stated that the animals were placed on a scheduled feeding regime to address their low body weight and other ailments.

43Dr. Dam testified regarding her specific findings on several of the animals and noted the following conditions when the animals were removed:

(a) Spud –2 year old intact male mixed-breed yorkie - his fur was urine-soaked, there was extreme matting of his haircoat, and he had a severe body score of 1.5/9. He was sedated to allow for grooming of the painful marring on his haircoat and during this time a full dental assessment was performed, which revealed grade 3/4 dental disease present.

(b) Leanne – 2 year old intact female large breed feline - suspected to be pregnant but underweight with a body score of 3.5/9, matting of coat, and had a constipated smell about her. A radiograph confirmed pregnancy, and post-pregnancy she had extreme difficulty urinating. With urgent medical intervention and medication, she began to have regular urination and bowel movements, but upon weaning she trended towards constipation. Therefore, she requires lifelong management for her constipation, including a prescription gastrointestinal diet. Dr. Dam stated that without medical intervention she could have ruptured her bladder and died, therefore future pregnancies would be high-risk and she recommended spaying Leanne.

(c) Smokey- 2 year old intact female large breed feline - was the most severe case at GTHS and the smell from her was said to be intolerable. Her hind end was severely matted to the extent surgical intervention was required. Once sedated, it was determined that there was a fecal accumulation around the size of a baseball attached to her, which was obstructing her anus and creating a painful infected wound. The wound was treated with antibiotics, and Smokey was placed on an aggressive treatment plan for her constipation with enemas and a fiber diet. Dr. Dam stated that she would require lifelong management for her constipation, including a specialized diet.

44Upon cross-examination, Dr. Dam testified that most of the animals were stable upon their return, but certain ones (including Brooks, Dunn, Dolly, Leanne, Smokey and Spud) had ongoing health concerns that needed to be monitored.

45Another veterinarian, Dr. Jackson testified regarding 21 felines and 3 nursing kittens (born in care on December 23, 2023) during their time at DWAS. She also attended DWAS herself on January 8, and February 13, 2024, and personally assessed the felines. Dr. Jackson’s findings for the cats she examined was consistent with the findings of Dr. Dam, albeit for different felines, and she testified that the animals all had varying degrees of matted hair, overgrown nails, gingivitis, and some also had respiratory disease. She commented that respiratory disease is generally caused by viral or bacterial infections that are not properly managed and it can be aggravated by inadequate ventilation in the property.

46Upon cross-examination, the Appellant questioned Dr. Jackson about the cause of the respiratory issues as she had not visited the Appellant’s property in person. Dr. Jackson explained that the high levels of ammonia in the Property as evidenced by the test strips collected by inspectors indicated poor ventilation.

47Dr. Jackson testified regarding the following animals with ongoing medical needs:

(a) Swift – pregnant feline, moderately anemic, and there was suspicion that there may be free fluid in her abdomen. She was rushed to surgery for an emergency cesarean section and four of her seven fetuses survived. Swift could not support them, so they were cared for at the Guelph Animal Hospital, but later died. She continued to have bloody discharge post-pregnancy and required urgent medical intervention. With supportive care, she stabilized. Dr. Jackson cautioned against future pregnancies for Swift.

(b) Gregory and Baroon –both male felines were identified as not having palpable testicles, which could be the result of both cats being previously castrated or because of a condition known as cryptorchidism. With this rare condition, if the testicles fail to descend it could lead to health risks including severe abdominal pain and cancer. Dr. Jackson recommended an ultrasound to determine if the felines had cryptorchidism and if so, castration would be crucial to eliminate the risk of testicular torsion and prevent passing along this rare gene.

48Of importance, Dr. Jackson raised concerns about the Appellant’s ability to operate a cattery in her small residential Property as it would not allow for proper care of the animals in terms of cleanliness and ventilation.²

49Inspector Lee testified about the state of the animals at the time of removal and also upon their return. She testified that on December 14, 2023, when she first attended the Appellant’s Property, she could smell urine and feces from behind the door and there was inadequate ventilation. Although the Property seemed to be in better condition upon the animals’ return on February 26, 2024, Inspector Lee stated that the animals were still in distress at the moment they were returned due to their ongoing medical needs and due to the lack of care the Appellant had shown previously.

50On February 21, 2024, AWS reattended to inspect the property before returning the animals, and Inspector Lee noted that it was clean, free of urine and feces, and there was food available that was not expired, unlike previous visits.

51On the date of the return, February 26, 2024, Inspector Lee and Inspector Austin attended the Property. Lee testified that the Appellant wanted the first group of animals to be placed upstairs, and the second group of animals to be placed in the main foyer so that she could move them to the appropriate areas of the house herself. The inspectors were not allowed to enter the basement.

52At the time of the return and while the inspectors were still on site, Supervisor Jones sent two emails to the Appellant attaching the subject Order to ensure the animals would receive the care they needed. The inspectors also provided a large Ziploc bag of special food for certain felines that were found to have gastrointestinal issues, and the Appellant was advised of their specific dietary needs.

53Regional Supervisor Jones testified as to the reasons for issuing the Orders on February 26, 2024, at the time the animals were returned. I find Supervisor Jones’ testimony to be especially compelling as:

1. She clarified that on the day the animals were removed, some felines had been found locked in various parts of the home, without proper access to water and/or food, and the entire property lacked cleanliness and proper ventilation. Therefore, AWS issued the Order to ensure that the Appellant would provide proper care to the animals moving forward; for example, ensuring that the appropriate number of litter boxes were available based on the number of cats.
2. She stated that because the Appellant was the sole provider for the animals, AWS requested daily written records to be maintained for at least 3 months to ensure that she was keeping up with the animal's food consumption, water, change of litter, and general behavior/health checks. Jones further testified that if there was an emergency and the Appellant was unavailable, someone would have to take over with caring for the animals and therefore a daily log would assist with this; especially for the animals that had specific dietary requirements.
3. Jones testified that AWS felt the animals were in distress at the time of their return as the Appellant had a history of not providing proper care to the animals, and therefore the Order was issued to ensure proper care. Also, the inspectors did not know the condition of the basement.
4. AWS had concerns about the general welfare of all of the animals, which formed the basis of Orders 1A through 1E, as well as concerns about specific animals’ well-being as some of them required additional care, which formed the basis of Orders 2 - 7. However, many of the specific Orders 2 - 7 provided the Appellant with various options for care as AWS understood that the Appellant operated a cattery and wanted to allow her to continue making a livelihood by breeding some animals without placing them at risk.

54I accept Supervisor Jones’ evidence that the Consent Order stipulated that an order would be issued as a condition of the return of the animals, to ensure that the ongoing medical issues continued to be addressed by the Appellant, and further that all the previous concerns regarding appropriate food and water, and proper care became part of a plan of care to ensure the animals would not be placed in distress.

55On March 25, 2024, AWS attended the Property again for a reinspection, as agreed to by the parties in the Consent Order, and Inspector Lee stated that the conditions had returned to how they were before the animals were returned. She testified that the litterboxes were soiled with urine and feces, there was inadequate food and water (including no gastro food as required), and it was clear that there was a lack of overall care for the animals.

56I find this last visit on March 25, 2024, to be especially informative as it shows the Appellant’s struggle to provide adequate care to her animals. As stated above, the definition of “distress” in both the PAWS Act and Regulations is quite broad and it includes animals being “in need of proper care”. The Respondent’s evidence and witness testimony demonstrated clearly that the conditions where the animals were being kept were unsanitary; that drinking water was often absent or not potable; the Property lacked proper ventilation; and lastly it was unclear what condition the basement was in as the Appellant did not allow AWS to enter it on the date the animals were returned.

57The Appellant had shown a pattern of improper care prior to the removal of the cats, leading to the terms of the Consent Order. The Appellant offered no evidence of the steps she had taken to improve the conditions in the Property following the return of the animals. In fact, the evidence presented by Inspector Lee about the reinspection on March 25, 2024, supports a finding of distress as the conditions in the Appellant’s Property had returned to their previous state. Furthermore, I find that based on the specific medical needs of certain animals, there was also a continuing state of distress because of the need for ongoing care and treatment.

Issue 2- Should the Orders be confirmed, revoked, or modified?

58Based on my findings, I revoke Order 1D and confirm Orders 1A, B, C, E, and Orders 2 – 7 for the reasons that follow.

59The Appellant requested that the Orders all be revoked on the basis that there were no “reasonable grounds” to believe the animals were in distress, therefore the preconditions for an order under section 30(1) of the Act had not been met. The Appellant also argued that because there are no specific prescribed standards of care for a “cattery operation”, there was no statutory authority for order 1D.

60As stated above, a pattern of improper care of the animals emerged from the evidence. AWS visited the Property on various occasions and observed the animals suffering from undue hardship caused by unsanitary conditions, lack of appropriate and adequate food and/or water, lack of medical care, and inadequate care overall. As well, based on the uncontradicted evidence of the veterinarians, many of the animals required ongoing care and specialized diets. This would constitute a continuing state of distress because of the need for ongoing care.

61The definition of “distress” in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act is “the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter”. Based on the evidence, I am persuaded that even after the cats were returned to the Appellant, they were indeed in need. Orders were required to ensure that prescribed standards in the Regulations would be satisfied so that the animals would not be placed in distress on their return to the Appellant.

62I was not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the Orders should all be revoked. The Appellant showed a history of improper care for the animals, and the issuance of the Orders was warranted based on the evidence. Moreover, the Appellant agreed to the Consent Order as part of an overall agreement with AWS for her animals to be returned.

The Orders:

Order 1D – Revoked

63Order 1D requires the Appellant to maintain daily written records for at least 3 months for all felines for their food, water, change of litter, and general behavior and health. The Appellant argued that there is no statutory authority to permit AWS to order the Appellant to create records. The Appellant also argued that this Order is forward-facing and cannot be said to be issued for the purpose of relieving the animals’ distress.

64Regional Supervisor Jones testified that because the Appellant indicated she was the sole provider for the animals, AWS requested daily written records to be maintained to ensure that she was keeping up with the animal's feedings, grooming, water, change of little and general health checks. Supervisor Jones testified that if there was an emergency and the Appellant was unavailable, someone would have to take over with caring for the animals and therefore a daily log would assist with this; especially for the animals that had specific dietary requirements.

65When questioned about whether owners are generally required to keep such detailed records, Supervisor Jones indicated that this is part of the animals' “general welfare” as required under the PAWS Act to keep up to date records such as health records, vaccines, etc.

66In considering whether it is reasonable for AWS to require owners or custodians of animals to maintain daily records for a period of one month when operating a cattery business, I can appreciate the Respondent’s position that it would assist with checking the condition of the animals. However, I find it overly onerous given that the other Orders already address the requirements necessary to provide proper care. As a matter of practicality, I see no way for one individual to maintain such accurate records when there are approximately 40 animals at the Property. The sample “Daily Cat Observations Form” requires checks every 3 hours or so, and with one individual operating a cattery, this does not seem feasible.

67I am compelled by the Appellant’s argument that Order 1D imposed on Ms. Sagoo was not a standard requirement as covered under the Regulations. I find that it is not possible to comply with an order to maintain daily written records for all felines when the Respondent acknowledged the Appellant is the sole caretaker for all of the animals at the Property.

Orders 1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, and Orders 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 - Confirmed

68Orders 1A through 1E apply to all 38 cats and require the Appellant to provide proper care in terms of feedings and supplying constant potable water (A), ensuring the litterboxes are cleaned regularly and kept free to build up (B), ensuring the house has proper ventilation (C), ensuring frequent grooming to prevent the formation of mats in the cats' haircoats (E). There is no dispute about these orders and the Appellant conceded in its opening statement that it took no issue with these requirements.

69Orders 2 - 6 have specific requirements for certain felines, and Order 7 has specific requirements for the care of one canine Spud. I note that orders 2 - 7 provided various options to the Appellant for the care of specific animals. Supervisor Jones clarified that this was because they knew the Appellant operated a cattery and they wanted to be flexible and provide her with options to care for said animals while still being able to breed some of them safely.

70It is evident from the testimony of both veterinarians on the specific animals subject to Orders 2 - 7 that they did have special, ongoing medical needs. For example, Gregory (Order 2) and Baroon (Order 4) were suspected of having bilateral cryptorchids, which can lead to serious pain in the animals or cancer if left untreated. The Orders were flexible as they provided several options to either neuter these cats, have a qualified veterinarian assess them, or rehome the animals.

71I find Orders 2 - 7 to be reasonable as they provide various options for the Appellant to provide “proper care” in line with these specific needs of the animals while also allowing her to continue operating her cattery business. If the Appellant did not wish to neuter or spay these animals, then she could also rehome them, but it would not be fair to continue breeding these specific felines as it could pass on certain rare and high-risk conditions. The same line of reasoning applies to Swift (Order 3) as she was at high risk if she were to be bred in the future. The Orders for Smokey (Order 5) and Leanne (Order 6), provided for special dietary requirements as these felines had specific dietary needs as a result of their gastrointestinal issues. Lastly, the canine Spud (Order 7) needed extra sanitary measures to prevent skin irritations from wearing a diaper, as well as grooming to prevent matting. These Orders are all confirmed as they are well supported by the veterinarian's findings outlined above.

72I am persuaded by the Respondent that these Orders are necessary to ensure that the regulated standard of care is provided upon the return of an animal(s). While the Appellant views this as “forward-facing”, I am persuaded by the Respondent that the Orders were part of a Consent Order in which the parties agreed that the cats would be returned to the Appellant conditional on the issuance of the Orders.

73I therefore confirm Orders 1A, B, C, and E for the general welfare of the animals.

74I further confirm Orders 2 -7 for the specific care for the named cats.

ORDER

75Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board:

a. Revokes Order 1D.

b. Confirms all other Orders, including Orders 1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, and Orders 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Footnotes

1. 1Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632 at para 52.
2. 2As part of her medical assessment, Dr. Jackson stated specifically that “in a home of this nature, with this many intact animals, cleaning and disinfection would need to be done on a daily/continuous basis, and extra forms of ventilation would be necessary”.