OACRB 2024

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a Statement of Account relating to the removal of 47 exotic birds.

The appellant had previously missed the statutory deadline to appeal the removal itself and sought to challenge the lawfulness of the removal and raise Charter arguments through the Statement of Account appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that challenging the underlying removal in a Statement of Account appeal constitutes an impermissible collateral attack.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant did not dispute the costs but sought a reduction based on financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

However, considering the appellant's limited financial means as a 19-year-old mother of two, the Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owing by 50 percent to balance accountability with the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $38,902.44 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for transportation, boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to 21 horses removed from the appellant's property.

The appellant argued the costs were unnecessary and excessive.

The Animal Care Review Board found the transportation, boarding, and veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Board varied the SOA to $38,499.69, reflecting a reduction in farrier services consented to by the respondent.

The Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to prohibit the Appellants from calling the Respondent's counsel as a witness in an appeal regarding a Statement of Account for animal care costs.

The Appellants sought to call opposing counsel to testify about alleged stalking and misleading the Board.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear complaints against lawyers, the Appellants failed to provide proper notice or a witness statement, and counsel cannot act as both a witness and representative for their client.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $200,525.96 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 83 cats and kittens removed from their property.

The Board found that the boarding and veterinary charges were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary the account to $20,052.59, representing ten percent of the original amount, due to the appellants' dire financial circumstances, medical issues, and risk of losing their property.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, a notice of decision to keep animals, a statement of account, and applied for the return of animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The compliance order and statement of account appeals were dismissed on preliminary motions with the appellant's consent due to late filing and revocation, respectively.

The appellant withdrew the remaining appeals after two and a half days of testimony.

All files were closed.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep (DTK) and applied for the return of 21 thoroughbred horses seized by Animal Welfare Services.

The horses were removed after a veterinarian advised they were in distress due to inadequate nutrition, lack of medical and farrier care, and poor environmental conditions including hazardous fencing and insufficient shelter.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the DTK was necessary to relieve the horses' distress and that returning them would place them back in distress.

The Board dismissed the appeal and the application, concluding the appellant failed to prove the conditions causing the distress had ceased to exist.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector removed 75 dogs from the applicant's property and subsequently issued a statement of account for their care.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory timelines, resulting in the dogs being forfeited to the Crown by operation of law.

The applicant then applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of the dogs.

The Board granted the Inspector's motion to dismiss the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals because the applicant ceased to be their owner upon forfeiture.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep Animal(s), and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her two Great Danes.

The animals were removed from the appellant's property after an inspection revealed highly unsanitary and hazardous conditions, including high ammonia levels, feces and urine on the floors, and a lack of food and potable water.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress and that removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The Board declined to return the dogs, finding no evidence that the hazardous conditions had been remedied, and confirmed the Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs in the amount of $6,424.05.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $10,435.34, covering the costs of care, boarding, and veterinary services for four horses removed from her property.

The Board first determined that the SOA was validly issued under s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act, finding that liability attaches to the person who was the owner or custodian at the time the costs were incurred, even if the animals were later forfeited or euthanized.

The Board confirmed the SOA in full, preferring the evidence of the respondent's veterinarians regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the care provided.

The appellant's request for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the removal of 21 horses from his rented farm by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS removed the horses after receiving complaints that horses had escaped onto a neighbouring property and a road, and after a veterinarian issued a certificate stating the horses were in distress due to inadequate fencing that had previously caused injury and death to other horses.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in distress, the removal was conducted in accordance with the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, and the removal was necessary to relieve the distress.

The appeal was dismissed and the request for the return of the horses was denied.

The appellant, who operates a cattery, appealed seven orders issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The orders were issued upon the return of 39 cats and one dog that had previously been removed due to distress.

The Board found that the animals remained in distress upon their return due to ongoing medical needs and unsanitary living conditions.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to general welfare and specific medical care, but revoked an order requiring the appellant to maintain daily written records for all felines, finding it overly onerous for a sole caretaker.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, the removal of 193 animals (including horses, cattle, sheep, emus, and birds), and a statement of account for $45,063.32 issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to lack of proper food, water, and sanitary living conditions, and that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

The Board confirmed the compliance order, declined to order the return of the animals, and varied the statement of account to $43,684.44 after deducting certain transportation costs.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a statement of account and application for the return of 86 cats.

The Board found the statement of account appeal was moot because the statement had been revoked, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the cats because they had already been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay previous statements of account.

The motion was granted and the proceedings were dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing her appeal of a Statement of Account.

The appeal had been dismissed after the applicant failed to attend a case conference and missed the deadline to respond to a notice of intent to dismiss.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed outside the 21-day statutory timeframe.

The Board further held that even if timely, the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration, as the Board had not acted outside its jurisdiction or violated procedural fairness by enforcing its procedural rules and timelines.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that reduced a Statement of Account for the boarding of 36 seized dogs.

The appellant argued the Board violated procedural fairness by refusing to issue a summons and made errors of law and fact regarding a purported duty of care, the sale of the dogs, and the reasonableness of boarding costs.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and concluding that the appellant was attempting to reargue the appeal rather than demonstrating any errors of fact or law.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $2,344.60 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care provided to a dog removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The dog was seized after the owner attempted to remove it from a veterinary hospital against medical advice while it was in critical distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the respondent proved the majority of the veterinary costs were reasonable and actual.

The Board varied the SOA to $2,162.88, deducting one unsupported ward fee.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of four cats in distress and confirmed a statement of account.

The appellant argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by denying adjournments, made errors of fact and law, heard false evidence, and failed to consider new evidence regarding compliance orders.

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

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep Animal(s) in Care (DTK) and a Statement of Account (SOA) for $1,801.11 issued by Animal Welfare Services after his three cats were removed from his flooded apartment while he was hospitalized.

At the hearing, the appellant conceded he could not currently house the cats, and the Board confirmed the DTK.

However, based on the appellant's credible testimony regarding his severe financial hardship, ongoing health issues, and unhoused status, the Board revoked the SOA in full.

The appellant appealed the removal of 15 equids, the subsequent Keep in Care decisions, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate shelter, water, and food, and confirmed the removal and Keep in Care decisions.

The Board also granted a confidentiality order to protect the appellant's personal health information.

The Statement of Account was confirmed but reduced on consent to remove trailer layover costs.