Katy Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 125

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 2025-01-30

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

Between:

Katy Touchette, Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Order Made By: Debra Backstein, Member

For the Appellant: Carson Frankum, Paralegal For the Respondent: Joanna Chan, Counsel

Heard By Videoconference: December 16 & December 17, 2024

OVERVIEW

1The Appellant is the owner of a flock of approximately 40 sheep, that were housed in a barn on a farm in Milford, Ontario.

2On November 12, 2024, Animal Welfare Services (AWS), responded to complaints regarding the flock being confined in the barn without food or water. One sheep was reported to be either deceased or dying. AWS Inspector Jamie Boudreau attended the property to conduct an inspection of the flock and their living conditions in the barn.

3On November 13, 2024, a Compliance Order was issued by Inspector Laurie Lamb to the Appellant pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act).

4On November 14, 2024, at 5:30 pm, AWS issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) pursuant to section 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act for non-compliance with the Compliance Order and the flock was removed from the Appellant’s care.

5On November 20, 2024, the Appellant appealed both the Compliance Order and the decision to remove the animals pursuant to s. 28(1) of the PAWS Act to the Animal Care Review Board (Board).

ISSUES

6The issues to be decided are:

1. Should the Board confirm, revoke or vary the Compliance Order of November 13, 2024?
2. Was the flock of in distress at the time of their removal on November 14, 2024? If so, was the removal of the flock of in accordance with s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act?
3. Was it necessary for AWS to remove the flock to alleviate their distress?
4. Should the flock be returned to the Appellant?

RESULT

7For the reasons that follow, the Board:

1. Confirms the Compliance Order dated November 13, 2024. The Board is satisfied that Inspector Lamb had reasonable grounds to believe that the flock was in distress and was acting within her authority to issue the Compliance Order.
2. Finds that the flock was in distress on November 14, 2024, and it was necessary to remove them to alleviate their distress. The Board therefore dismisses the appeal of the removal and makes no order for the return of the flock.

ANALYSIS

8The Board heard testimony from Inspectors Boudreau and Lamb, AWS veterinarian Dr. J. Bruce Robertson, the Appellant and the Appellant’s witness, Mr. Blaine Way. The Board also reviewed documentary evidence including photos taken of the flock.

Was the Flock in Distress?

9The Board finds that the flock was in distress for the reasons that follow.

10“Distress” is defined in section 1(1) of the PAWS Act as the state of being:

• In need of proper care, water, food or shelter;
• Injured, sick or in pain or suffering or;
• Abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.

11Inspector Boudreau testified to the following observations to support the conclusion that the flock was in distress:

• Upon arrival at the property, Inspector Boudreau was unable to locate the Appellant but entered the barn pursuant to section 29(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) due to concerns about critical distress;
• The barn was dark and unsanitary;
• The barn had an accumulation of feces and the scattered remains of dead sheep;
• The flock was lethargic and would not move without being nudged;
• One sheep was on its back and believed to be dying;
• Some sheep had severe wool loss which exposed protruding spines; and
• Although water was available to the flock, there was no food available to them.

12The Appellant testified that:

• She had no experience with sheep prior to obtaining this flock;
• She did not believe that the flock was in distress;
• She got her veterinary advice from friends who were farmers;
• The flock had not been seen by a veterinarian since 2022;
• Her practice was to feed the flock a five by five bale of hay every three to four days with no supplementation.
• She did not have a regular schedule to examine the flock for health conditions including anemia and low body condition.
• She did not think that the flock needed regular vaccines because they were kept inside.
• She believed that the poor quality of the wool was due to the larger sheep eating grass off the smaller sheep’s backs and plucking out the wool and not due to poor nutrition.
• She knew that parasite infections in sheep were common, but she did not think the flock had a problem because they did not have diarrhea.
• She did not believe in deworming too often because she didn’t want the flock to become immune to the dewormer.

13The Board is therefore satisfied that the flock was in distress as they lacked proper care and were neglected. I find the Appellant did not provide the flock with proper nutrition which led to lethargy, emaciation and made them susceptible to disease. The Appellant did not dispute her sparse feeding practices and confirmed that they had not been seen by a vet since 2022. She also confirmed that she did not schedule regular vaccination, physical examination, or deworming of the flock. As such, the Board concludes that the flock was in a state of distress as defined by s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act.

Was the Removal of the Flock in Accordance with s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act and was the Removal necessary to Alleviate the Distress of the Flock?

14The Board finds that the flock was removed in accordance with s. 31(1)(c) for the reasons that follow.

15Section 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act states that an AWS inspector may remove an animal from the place where it is and take possession of the animal for the purpose of relieving its distress if an order respecting the animal has been made under s. 30 of the PAWS Act and the order has not been complied with.

16Inspector Lamb issued an Order pursuant to section 30(1) of the PAWS Act requiring the Appellant to complete a number of steps to relieve the distress of the flock including:

i. Provide the flock with adequate feed; ii. Have the flock seen by a veterinarian with special attention to overall health, body condition, lethargy, poor coat quality and coat loss; iii. Follow all veterinary instructions and provide AWS with the veterinarian examination records and treatments; and iv. Have the flock enclosure cleared of remnants of deceased animals and debris.

17The Compliance Order was issued to the Appellant by email on November 13, 2024, at 1:05 pm and provided a compliance deadline of November 14, 2024, at 12:00 pm.

18Inspector Lamb testified that:

• She had spoken to the Appellant prior to issuing the Order and the Appellant confirmed her regular practice to feed the flock once every three to four days without supplementation, regardless of the condition of the flock;
• She attended the barn on November 14, 2024, and confirmed the flock were in the same state as described by Inspector Boudreau on November 12, 2024. They appeared emaciated with missing wool;
• The barn was still scattered with the accumulation of bones and feces;
• No food was available to the flock;
• Dr. Robertson attended the barn with Inspector Lamb confirmed the Order was reasonable given the extreme distress of the flock;
• The Appellant had advised her that she was arranging to have a veterinarian, Dr. Hancock, examine the flock but she was unsure as to when he would arrive and that she would be able to comply if she was afforded more time;
• Once Dr. Hancock arrived, Inspector Lamb confirmed that she would not remove the flock if he was able to examine and treat the animals.
• Dr. Hancock advised her that he had no veterinarian-client relationship with the Appellant and would be unable to treat the flock that day and ultimately left the property as he was unwilling to become involved;
• Dr. Robertson attended the barn with her and confirmed the Order was reasonable given the extreme distress of the flock.

19After considering the evidence presented by the parties, and in light of the failure of the Appellant to comply with the Compliance Order of November 13, 2024, the Board finds that the removal was properly made under s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act for the purpose of providing the necessaries to alleviate the flock of its distress. The Board is not swayed by the Appellant’s claim that this was just a matter of timing and that she could have and would have complied with the Order if she had been permitted a longer time to do so. This was not a matter of a quick decline in the condition of the flock and was clearly a result of a long practice of neglect by the Appellant.

20The Board therefore finds that pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act, the removal of the flock was authorized. Had the flock’s care been delayed, based on a balance of probabilities, the distress would have increased.

Should the Flock Be Returned to the Appellant?

21For the purposes of these Appeals, the Board’s powers are limited to considering the return of the flock based on whether their removal was unwarranted and not carried out in accordance with the law. The Board finds that the removal was warranted and in accordance with s.31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act. As a result, the issue of the Board returning the flock is moot and the Board cannot order the return of the flock.

ORDER

22The Compliance Order is confirmed.

23The appeal of the Removal is dismissed.