Jillian Yungblut v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 126

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 2025-02-19

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

Between:

Jillian Yungblut Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Jillian Yungblut, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Adrian Iafrate, Counsel, Animal Welfare Services; Ke Yi (Kelly) Fan, Student-at-Law

Heard By Videoconference: January 8, 2025

OVERVIEW

1The appellant, Jillian Yungblut, is the owner of a male cat named Oliver, who suffers from diabetes mellitus. On August 8, 2024, Oliver was removed from the appellant’s apartment in St. Mary’s Ontario (Property) by the respondent Animal Welfare Services (AWS). Subsequently, on August 9, 2024, a Decision to Keep the Animal(s) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (DTK) was issued to the appellant.

2The respondent served the appellant with a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $6,230.33 on November 6, 2024, for boarding and veterinary costs incurred by AWS in providing care to Oliver.

3On November 18, 2024, the appellant appealed the SOA (Board File No 16473) and brought an Application for the Revocation of an Order or Return of an Animal (Application for Return- Board File No 16474) to the Animal Care Review Board (Board). The appellant did not appeal the Notice of Removal (NOR), DTK, or a further SOA served on December 10, 2024.

4The Board held a case conference on December 3, 2024, and Oliver was returned to the appellant shortly after the case conference. The appellant indicated that she wishes to withdraw her Application for Return as the issue is moot. Therefore Board File No 16474 is closed.

5The appeal of the SOA, Board File No 16473, proceeded by way of a videoconference hearing on January 8, 2025.

THE ISSUES

6The issues in dispute in this matter are:

1. Do the charges on the Statement of Account reflect the actual cost of necessaries provided and were they reasonable?
2. Should the SOA be reduced due to the appellant’s financial circumstances?

RESULT

7For the reasons that follow, the Board:

1. Finds that the charges on the SOA were reasonable and necessary.
2. Confirms the SOA dated November 6, 2024, and orders the appellant to pay $6,203.33 to the Minister of Finance.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Did the charges on the SOA reflect the actual cost of necessaries provided and were they reasonable?

8Section 35(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act) states that the respondent, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI), may serve an animal owner or custodian with a SOA respecting costs incurred to relieve distress and provide necessaries.

9Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act provides a list of costs that may be recovered including, but not limited to, costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress, remove and take the animal into care, provide care under a DTK, and costs to take any prescribed action in relation to the animal.

10The respondent has the initial evidentiary burden to show that the SOA reflects costs that were reasonable and necessary.

11The respondent called evidence from two witnesses: expert veterinarian Dr. Ian Welch and Inspector Gary Robillard, who was the lead AWS inspector dealing with the removal and care of Oliver.

12Inspector Robillard provided testimony regarding the basis for removal and costs incurred under the SOA to relieve Oliver’s distress. He testified that on July 17, 2024, AWS received a call from the appellant’s mother regarding a cat that was said to be diabetic, but not receiving treatment.

13In response, Inspector Robillard first visited the appellant’s Property on July 30, 2024. He noted that Oliver displayed symptoms consistent with diabetes; he was thin and was urinating very frequently. As a result, Inspector Robillard issued an Order to the appellant to have Oliver examined by a veterinarian with special attention to diabetes by August 7, 2024.

14Inspector Robillard attended the Property to check compliance on August 7, 2024, but he was unable to reach the appellant. Later that day Inspector Robillard received a second complaint, which came from the veterinarian clinic, stating that Oliver had been assessed on July 31, 2024, and bloodwork confirmed he had diabetes and pancreatitis requiring medical attention. The veterinarian called AWS because, after several attempts to contact the appellant, she had indicated that she could not afford Oliver’s insulin medication and was therefore refusing treatment.

15As a result, Inspector Robillard attended the Property on August 8, 2024, and spoke to the appellant who confirmed that she could not afford the medication, which cost $200, and she was trying to find a way to get the money. The appellant confirmed this in her testimony and admitted that she and her family were struggling financially at the time. Inspector Robillard proceeded to remove Oliver due to critical distress and failure to comply with the Order. Dr. Welch also testified that Oliver would need insulin within a few days, or his condition could deteriorate to a far worse state.

16Upon removal, Oliver was taken to the Northwest London Vet Clinic for an assessment. Blood glucose readings were found to be very high, and the vet provided insulin, syringes, and diabetic kibble, and recommended an ultrasound to check his pancreas. Later that day, Oliver was transported to Tails in Trails Pet Resort as this boarding facility had experience providing care for diabetic animals. The DTK was issued on August 9, 2024, to provide ongoing care to Oliver. This was done because the appellant had expressed financial concerns and said she could not pay for Oliver’s medical care at that time.

17Inspector Robillard testified that Oliver continued to be monitored every few weeks with blood glucose curves. Eight were performed in total and his insulin was doubled to treat extremely high blood glucose levels. Inspector Robillard also testified that it is hard to say when Oliver’s blood glucose levels stabilized, but it was likely around November 2024.

18The appellant did not dispute the accounts of these witnesses but maintained that Oliver should not have been removed because his situation was not that severe, and she would have obtained the treatment once her financial situation improved.

19Dr. Welch, who was qualified as an expert in veterinary medicine, provided an overview of the medical documents and explained the severity of Oliver’s situation. He explained that Oliver’s diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, also known as type 1 diabetes, meant that treatment was necessary because a lack of insulin could lead to further complications, including organ failure, which supports AWS’s decision to remove Oliver on the basis of critical distress. Dr. Welch also testified that Oliver’s pancreatitis was less serious, but still required assessment.

20Based on the evidence provided, I am convinced that the appellant had many opportunities to provide care for Oliver’s diabetes, but she failed to do so. The appellant testified that she had noticed Oliver’s weight reducing and that he was excessively urinating for at least a couple of months. Based on this, the appellant’s decision not to bring Oliver to a veterinary clinic until receiving the Order and to leave him in distress without treatment provided a strong and compelling basis for CAWI to issue the NOR and DTK.

The veterinary care costs are reasonable and uncontested

21On November 7, 2024, AWS sent the appellant the SOA in the total amount of $6,230.33. This SOA included six invoices for veterinary care from three facilities: Northwest London Veterinary Clinic, Dr. Craig Professional Veterinary Medical Association, and Mildmay Veterinary Clinic, totalling $2,121.65. It also included three invoices for boarding care from Tails in Trails Pet Resort, totalling $4,108.68.

22In terms of veterinary costs, Dr. Welch explained that the treatment provided to Oliver included regular blood glucose curves, which consisted of 4-5 blood glucose tests a day to determine how much insulin he required, as well as the administration of insulin twice daily.

23Dr. Welch testified about the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OMVA) Fee Guide, which he stated provides the average of fair and reasonable fees for veterinary services based on surveys from various veterinary clinics across Ontario. He said that the OVMA Guide is geared towards general practitioners, not specialists, and it does not cover non-veterinary services such as boarding fees.

24In terms of the veterinary fees charged on the SOA, Dr. Welch’s opinion is that all the costs covered in the invoices were reasonable, as they fell below the standard amounts in the OMVA Guide. For example, Mildmay Veterinary Clinic charged $85 to perform a glucose check, which is much lower than the OMVA Guide that sets the price to over $400.

25The appellant did not challenge the evidence regarding veterinary care put forward by the respondent, nor did she contest any of the fees in the invoices captured in the SOA.

26As such, I was compelled by the testimony of Inspector Robillard and Dr. Welch confirming that the costs incurred for Oliver’s care were reasonable and necessary as they were needed to diagnose and treat Oliver’s condition.

The boarding costs are reasonable and uncontested

27In terms of the costs of boarding Oliver, there were three invoices included in the SOA from Tails in Trails Pet Resort, which covered the period of August 8 to October 31, 2024. Any additional boarding fees from Tails in Trails would have been charged under the second SOA, which was not appealed.

28Inspector Robillard testified that the boarding fee charged by Tails in Trails Pet Resort was $40 daily, and the staff had experience administering insulin to felines which was important for Oliver’s care. Dr. Welch testified that according to the OMVA Guide, the fee to board a cat and administer medication would typically be $140.90 per day, so the daily rate fell well below standard and was quite reasonable.

29The appellant did not challenge any fees charged by Tails in Trails Pet Resort invoices and she did not contest the boarding costs. She expressed gratitude for the care Oliver received and understood that insulin was necessary for his diabetes, but that it was just a matter of cost.

30I find that the removal of Oliver was necessary to relieve his distress especially because the appellant, on her own admission, was unable to afford the insulin treatment he required. I am convinced by the respondent’s evidence that the boarding fees charged by Tails in Trails Pet Resort, which included the administration of insulin, were fair and reasonable.

31Overall, I find that the costs incurred by AWS under the SOA to provide veterinary and boarding care to Oliver were reasonable and necessary. The amounts charged for both were supported by detailed invoices, and the charges for veterinary care fell below the standard fees recommended in the generally accepted OMVA Fee Guide.

32For these reasons, the Board confirms the SOA in the amount of $6,230.33.

Issue 2: Should the SOA be reduced due to the appellant’s financial circumstances?

33The Board was not persuaded that the SOA should be reduced, as the appellant did not provide any basis for varying the SOA or provide evidence of a current inability to pay the account.

34During her testimony, the appellant said that her family was struggling financially at the time of removal and she suspected Oliver was in distress for around two months because he was losing weight and urinating very often. However, she stated that while she appreciated the veterinarian’s opinion that Oliver required insulin treatment, she simply could not afford it as her husband was out of work and they had a new baby to support.

35The appellant testified that her partner resumed work in October and she was also able to secure child benefits, which greatly improved their situation.

36During cross-examination, the respondent asked how long she would have allowed Oliver’s situation to go untreated, and the appellant replied that she had had Oliver for upwards of 12 years and he generally did not seem to be so bad; he had just recently started limping. She seemed sympathetic to his suffering and stated that she would have surrendered him if needed because she did not want anything bad to happen to Oliver.

37The respondent relied on the statements made in the Application for Return, as well as the appellant’s testimony about her improved financial situation, to argue that the SOA should not be reduced. In the Application, the appellant wrote: “I’m thrilled to report that our circumstances have significantly improved. My partner is now employed full-time, and I’ve resolved my government payment issues, securing a steady income. Additionally, I’ve discovered financial aid programs like PAWS and Farley, ensuring Oliver receives proper care.”

38Following the case conference, AWS requested proof that the appellant could cover the costs of care for Oliver moving forward, and she explained that her partner had a new job and provided pay stubs to show they could afford to administer insulin twice daily moving forward. Based on this, AWS agreed to return Oliver to their care.

39Inspector Robillard testified that he received proof that the appellant’s husband was working full time making $28/hourly. Throughout her testimony, the appellant indicated that he was still working, and she acknowledged that they were doing far better than during the time Oliver was removed.

40Based on this, I see no basis for reducing the SOA, especially given the necessity of the treatment that Oliver had required when he was removed.

41During closing submissions, the appellant requested to pay the SOA with a payment plan. The Board does not have the authority to order a payment plan, but the appellant can certainly discuss repayment options with the respondent directly.

42Overall, I find that the SOA should be confirmed in its entirety, as the appellant failed to convince me that it should be modified. Due to the appellant’s improved financial position, there is simply no basis for varying or revoking the SOA. The evidence shows that AWS acted prudently to remove Oliver from the appellant’s care on account of her failure to administer treatment, and any costs incurred to provide veterinary care and boarding should be paid by the appellant.

ORDER

43Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board:

1. Closes Board File No 16474, the Application for Return, as Oliver has been returned to the applicant, who advises the Board that she no longer wishes to pursue that Application on the basis of its mootness.
2. Confirms the SOA dated November 7, 2024, in the amount of $6,230.33, as the charges incurred were both reasonable and necessary; and
3. Orders the appellant to pay $6,230.33 to the Minister of Finance;