Parker (Lexa) Mogck and Chelsey Flanders v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 121

Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 2025-01-24

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

Between:

Parker (Lexa) Mogck and Chelsey Flanders Appellants

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Alisa Chaplick, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellants: Parker (Lexa) Mogck and Chelsey Flanders Self-represented

For the Respondent: Brandon James, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) Danielle Meuleman, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: January 6, 2025

OVERVIEW

1The appellants, Parker Mogck, known as Lexa, and Chelsey Flanders (the "Appellants"), were the owners of a dog named Kylo.

2On November 22, 2023, Animal Welfare Services ("AWS") issued an Order to the Appellants, pursuant to section 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (the "PAWS Act") ordering them to comply with seven items regarding various animals owned by the Appellants. The completion dates in the Order regarding the animals ranged from November 22, 2023 to December 6, 2023. At the hearing, the Order was only discussed as it related to Kylo, not the other animals, as the other animals were not at issue in this matter.

3Item 3 of the Order required the Appellants to take Kylo to a veterinarian for an examination, and to provide Inspector Wynter Patchett with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the findings and treatments recommended and undertaken by the veterinarian. It also required the Appellants to submit a statement of treatments the Appellants gave to Kylo at home according to the veterinarian's recommendations. The Order also required the Appellants to provide adequate and appropriate treatment and medical attention according to the veterinarian's instructions.

4The Appellants filed an Application for Revocation of an Order or Return of an Animal dated October 24, 2024, with the Animal Care Review Board (the "Board"), pursuant to section 38(3) of the PAWS Act, on the basis that Kylo passed away in April of 2024 while in Alberta.

ISSUE

i. Should the Order dated November 22, 2023 be revoked as it relates to Kylo.

RESULT

5After hearing Lexa's testimony, counsel for the Respondent advised that since Kylo is either deceased or no longer in the Appellants' custody, the Order dated November 22, 2023 will be revoked as it relates to Kylo. The Board agrees and revokes the Order dated November 22, 2023 as it relates to Kylo.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Should the Order dated November 22, 2023 be revoked as it relates to Kylo?

6Lexa testified that the Appellants moved to Alberta in March of 2024 to help on a family member's farm. On the farm, there was a coyote problem and Kylo was helping to hunt the coyotes. During this time period, Kylo went too far when hunting and Lexa could not find him.

7Lexa and a family member searched for Kylo for 3 days and found an animal's foot, which looked like it could have been Kylo's foot. At this time, Lexa and the family member stopped searching for Kylo and presumed him dead.

8Lexa testified that in addition to finding the foot, Kylo was presumed dead because, despite having a microchip, no veterinarian contacted Lexa to advise that Kylo had been located.

ORDER

9The Respondent advised that since Kylo is either deceased or no longer in the Appellants' custody, the Order dated November 22, 2023 will be revoked as it relates to Kylo. The Board agrees and revokes the Order dated November 22, 2023 as it relates to Kylo.