OACRB 2025

The applicant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account for veterinary care was issued.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the automatic forfeiture of the dog to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of the dog on the basis of mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog due to the forfeiture, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.

The applicant sought the return of her dog, which had been removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to obtain veterinary care.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the subsequent Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being forfeited to the Crown.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of an animal that had been forfeited and become the property of the Crown.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $11,245.09 issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her animals were removed due to distress.

The animals had been left alone in unsanitary conditions.

The Board found the costs were justified, reasonable, and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of an inability to pay.

The Statement of Account was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after his cat was removed due to non-compliance with an animal welfare order.

The adjudicator found that the costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animal's distress.

However, based on evidence of the appellant's acquired brain injury and extremely low income, the adjudicator varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 90 percent due to financial hardship.

The appellant appealed several orders, a notice of removal, a decision to keep animals, and a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding two horses.

The horses were found to be emaciated and living in hazardous conditions without adequate food or potable water.

The adjudicator found that the horses were in distress and that the appellant failed to comply with the initial orders to provide veterinary care and improve their living conditions.

The removal of the horses was deemed necessary to relieve their distress, and the decision to keep them in care was upheld as returning them would likely place them back in distress.

The statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs was confirmed, and the appellant's request for costs was denied.

The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the transportation, boarding, and veterinary care of 16 horses removed from her property.

The Appellant brought preliminary motions to exclude late-filed evidence and for the adjudicator's recusal, both of which were dismissed.

On the merits, the Board found that the Respondent met its burden of proving the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, supported by expert veterinary evidence.

The Appellant failed to provide evidence challenging the costs, focusing instead on the underlying removal of the horses, which was not before the Board.

The Statement of Account was confirmed with a minor reduction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed her application for the return of 31 cats due to mootness following their forfeiture.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness violations, failure to accommodate her disabilities, and errors regarding the service date of a Statement of Account.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that it had not violated procedural fairness, had provided opportunities for accommodation, and had correctly acted within its jurisdiction to determine the service date and statutory forfeiture timelines.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board order that dismissed her appeal of a Statement of Account under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The original appeal was dismissed because it was filed after the prescribed 10-day statutory deadline.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, and that the Board had no jurisdiction to accept a late appeal.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services, a Statement of Account for $1,133.04, and applied for the dog's return.

The dog was removed after video evidence surfaced showing the appellant physically abusing and threatening to kill the dog on a livestream.

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

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account as reasonable and necessary costs of care.

The application for return was dismissed because the conditions causing the distress had not ceased to exist, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the dog returned to the appellant's family members in another province.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $29,694.95 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the removal, boarding, and veterinary care of 71 animals, and applied for the return of the 66 surviving animals.

The Animal Care Review Board found that most of the costs were actual and reasonable, supported by expert veterinary evidence, but deducted $8,325.00 in projected boarding costs that had not yet been incurred when the SOA was issued.

The Board varied the SOA to $21,369.95.

The Board dismissed the application for the return of the animals, finding the appellants failed to prove that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist at their new property.

The appellant appealed the removal of several exotic animals from her home and shed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of enrichment, and improper housing.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal of two Macaques, a Fennec Fox, two Genets, and a Capuchin, finding they were in distress and their basic and species-specific standards of care were not met.

However, the Board ordered the return of one juvenile Macaque kept inside the home, finding it was adequately cared for and not in distress.

The applicant applied for the return of her seven bulldogs, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services after being found abandoned and living in unsanitary conditions.

The applicant, who was marginally housed and experiencing financial difficulties, argued she did not abandon the dogs and could now care for them.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist, as she provided insufficient evidence of stable housing or improved circumstances.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a prior motion decision that dismissed the appellant's appeal and applications under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Inspector argued the Board made an error of law in its statutory interpretation of section 38 and violated procedural fairness by not allowing submissions on that interpretation.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Inspector failed to demonstrate that the alleged error of law would have changed the outcome, and that the Inspector had been provided ample opportunity to make submissions during the original motion.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his four dogs.

The dogs were removed after video evidence showed the appellant physically abusing them in an elevator and hallway.

Relying on expert veterinary and behavioural evidence, the Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in physical and psychological distress.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to relieve the dogs' distress and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to keep her dog in care and a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The dog was seized after the appellant left a veterinary clinic without paying for emergency surgery due to financial constraints.

The Board found that it was not necessary to keep the dog in care to alleviate distress post-surgery, and there were no reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The Board ordered the dog returned to the appellant and varied the Statement of Account from $4,064.28 to $3,305.01 by deducting duplicate charges, unproven medication costs, and boarding fees incurred after the dog should have been returned.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after his fourteen dogs were removed for non-compliance with an order.

The original SOA amount of $41,566.85 was amended to $38,007.35 during the hearing to exclude boarding costs after the date the respondent determined the animals could be returned.

The Board found that the costs reflected actual and necessary expenses for boarding and medications, and that the amounts were reasonable.

The amended SOA was confirmed.

The applicant sought the return of 110 cats removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the application as moot, arguing the cats had been forfeited to the Crown because the applicant failed to appeal or pay a $72,397.26 statement of account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the forfeiture extinguished the applicant's ownership rights, leaving the Board without jurisdiction to order the animals' return.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no live controversy or special circumstances justifying the expenditure of resources.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order issued by an Animal Welfare Service inspector requiring them to have their dog examined by a veterinarian.

Before the hearing, the dog was removed from the appellants' care and the order was revoked.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that since the order had been revoked, there was no longer an issue to decide and no remedy the Board could provide.

The applicant sought the return of her dogs and cat, which had been removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the animals had been forfeited to the Crown due to the applicant's failure to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals, as they had become the property of the Crown by operation of statute.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep in Care, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her eight dogs.

The animals were removed following an inspection that alleged unsanitary conditions, lack of water, and insufficient space.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were not in distress at the time of removal, noting evidence that they were provided with adequate water, space, and care.

The Board also found no reasonable grounds to keep the dogs in care, relying on expert veterinary testimony that any medical issues could have been addressed through orders rather than removal.

The Board ordered the dogs returned to the appellant and revoked the $13,934.44 Statement of Account.