Tribunals Ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Date: 2025-02-21
Application under section 38(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Lindsay J. Fradgley Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicators: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Lindsay J. Fradgley, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: January 24, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Lindsay J. Fradgley (applicant) has brought an application seeking the return of two animals that were removed from her residence by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) and kept in care primarily over concerns about their thin body condition. She brings this application under s. 38(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) and argues that the conditions that caused her two dogs to be kept in care no longer exist.
2The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (respondent) asks the Animal Care Review Board (Board) to dismiss the application because the applicant has not shown that she has a proper care plan in place for the dogs.
3For the reasons set out below, I decline to order the return of the dogs to the applicant. Although I find that the applicant is making genuine efforts to address the conditions that led to her dogs’ distress, I have concerns about the applicant’s ability to meet the dogs’ veterinary and environmental/shelter needs.
ISSUE
4Have the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the respondent’s care ceased to exist such that the animals should be returned to the applicant?
RESULT
5Pursuant to its powers under s. 38(9)2 of the PAWS Act, the Board declines to order the return of the animals.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Applicant’s adjournment request and accommodation
6The applicant requested an adjournment on the afternoon prior to the hearing. Given the late request, the Board asked the applicant to attend the following day and present her request to the hearing adjudicator.
7At the start of the hearing, the applicant phoned in and stated that she felt unwell and needed rest. She was taking medication for a headache and nausea and was experiencing stress. The applicant also shared that she was not well enough to travel to her community service worker’s office, from where she was scheduled to attend the videoconference hearing that day. The applicant asked for the hearing to be rescheduled to the following week, noting also that she had a scheduling conflict with this hearing because a friend was expected to help her run errands later that same morning.
8The adjournment request was not supported by any medical documentation, and the applicant’s own evidence that she had a commitment for later that morning did not persuade me that her health situation prevented her from participating in the proceeding. However, recognizing that participating in a hearing can be stressful, I offered the applicant the option of attending the hearing by phone from her current location. This eliminated the need for her to travel to her service worker’s office to access the Zoom platform. The service worker would remain on the line to screen share documents and be available in case the applicant needed support, in line with my earlier order permitting the service worker to attend the hearing as the applicant’s support person.
9As the applicant was comfortable with this arrangement and the respondent had no concerns, the hearing proceeded on this basis. Shortly thereafter, the applicant was able to join the Zoom videoconference using her mobile phone and could hear and see the other participants.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
10In an application for the return of animals, the applicant must prove that the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the respondent’s care are no longer present. I will first outline what the respondent’s concerns were with the applicant’s care of the dogs and then turn to consider the applicant’s evidence on whether she has addressed those concerns.
Applicant’s non-compliance with an order requiring a veterinary examination
11AWS Inspector Gary Robillard testified for the respondent and described the events that led to the removal of the dogs from the applicant’s residence and the decision to keep them in care.
12On November 24, 2024, Inspector Robillard attended at the applicant’s residence after AWS received a complaint about two underweight dogs. He made the following observations during that visit:
- A dog named Tucker had dark red spots on his front leg and paw. The dog was very thin, and his ribs were visible.
- A dog named Maxwell was alert and energetic but also thin. The ribs and hip bones were visible.
- A third dog named Domi was energetic and in good body condition.
13Inspector Robillard was concerned about Tucker and Maxwell’s weight and the wound on Tucker’s leg. As a result, he issued an order under s. 30 of the PAWS Act, requiring the applicant to have Tucker and Maxwell examined by a veterinarian, with special attention to their overall body condition and Tucker’s front left paw. The applicant was also required to provide the inspector with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the examination findings and the recommended treatment, and to follow all veterinary advice. These steps were to be completed by November 29, 2024.
14While Inspector Robillard believed there was food available to the dogs based on his conversations with the applicant, he gave the applicant two six-pound bags of dog food. Inspector Robillard suspected that one of the dogs, Domi, was “food aggressive” and prevented Tucker and Maxwell from eating enough.
15On November 25, 2024, the day after the inspection, the applicant left a voice message for Inspector Robillard in which she stated that she had contacted a veterinarian and was told to wait to have the dogs examined because she did not have money at that time. She stated her dogs were fine and that Inspector Robillard need not come to her home. In a text message exchange with the inspector a few days later, the applicant reiterates that her dogs are fine and that the inspector need not check on them.
16Inspector Robillard returned to check compliance with the order on December 4, 2024. He concluded that it was appropriate to remove Tucker and Maxwell from the residence that day because he had not received any information confirming they had been seen by a veterinarian and they were still thin. Accordingly, he issued a notice indicating that the animals had been removed because of non-compliance with an order (s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act).
Veterinary examinations show dogs were underweight and Tucker required wound care
17Tucker and Maxwell were examined by a veterinarian on the day they were removed. The medical records from Avon Pet Hospital describe the dogs as “emaciated”.
18Tucker weighed approximately 67 pounds and his target weight was 75 pounds. He was prescribed oral antibiotics and a topical medication for the sores on his front left leg, two of which were infected.
19Maxwell weighed approximately 53 pounds and his target weight was 65 pounds.
20Both dogs were put on a refeeding schedule to help them gain weight.
Respondent’s decision to keep the animals in care
21On December 6, 2025, the respondent issued its decision to keep the dogs in care and cited two reasons for that decision:
- Keeping the animals in care was necessary to relieve their distress (s. 31(6)(a) of the PAWS Act); and
- They had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the applicant (s. 31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act).
22The decision document reviewed the history and noted that the applicant was either unwilling or unable to comprehend the distress observed in the dogs, and that she continued to claim that the dogs were fine. The decision also referenced the fact that the applicant had contacted the police during the removal stating her belief that the dogs were being illegally removed. This added to the respondent’s concern that the applicant was unwilling or unable to understand that they were in distress.
23The decision outlined several conditions the applicant had to satisfy before the respondent would consider returning the dogs. These included:
- Confirmation of a legal, suitable residence with a care plan and proof of resources to ensure standards of care were met with respect to food, water, and access to a veterinarian. The applicant needed to show she was financially prepared to meet the medical requirements, including taking the dogs for follow-up examinations given that they were still being treated.
- An inspection of the location where the dogs would be kept to ensure that it met the standards of care, and a plan to ensure the dogs did not fight.
The applicant has not satisfied the Board that the conditions that caused the animals to be in distress have ceased to exist
24In support of her application, the applicant submitted that she would ensure that the dogs have food and water available to them, that she will budget and save for veterinary care, she will continue monthly check-ups and will separate the dogs if they fight.
25The respondent opposed the application, noting that the dogs’ treatment was still ongoing and that the applicant hadn’t provided concrete evidence of how she would alleviate the dogs’ distress if they were returned to her. In the respondent’s view, it was unclear how the applicant would meet the standards of care based on her current level of income, including how she would pay for veterinary care and transport the dogs to the clinic, or how her plan to manage their playfighting differed from her practices at the time the dogs were removed.
26For the reasons set out below, I deny the application due to concerns about the applicant’s ability to provide adequate shelter and cover the dogs’ medical expenses.
Applicant’s housing situation
27The applicant testified that since the events in question, she had been evicted from her home and was living in a motel with her dog, Domi. With the help of family members, her motel room was paid up to January 30, 2025. She had completed a housing application and was actively looking for housing.
28While I am sympathetic to the applicant’s situation, I find that the lack of housing is a serious challenge, especially given the applicant’s evidence that she may have to board her dog, Domi, until she is able to find housing.
29It is unclear how the applicant would be able to provide shelter to two other dogs if she anticipates needing to find boarding or a foster home for the dog currently in her care. In cross-examination, the applicant also stated that she would place Maxwell and Tucker in a foster home and that she would need to find a place for them before they were returned to her.
30This uncertainty around where the dogs would be housed if returned to the applicant suggests that the applicant cannot meet the standards of care as it relates to shelter and is the primary factor that leads me to deny this application.
Applicant’s plan to manage food aggression
31A live issue at this hearing was how the applicant proposes to manage Domi’s food aggression, which was likely contributing to Tucker and Maxwell being underweight.
32In cross-examination, the applicant said the dogs did get into fights, but they have grown out of this behaviour. She acknowledged that Domi is “food aggressive” toward the other dogs and that she has managed this by keeping food dishes in separate rooms and either emptying or taking dishes away after they’ve finished eating.
33It was unclear how the applicant would manage this going forward, both given the uncertain housing situation or the fact that this strategy either requires a residence with separate rooms for each dog, or a caregiver to be present to place the dogs in different areas of a home and supervise them during meals.
Applicant’s financial situation
34The applicant receives $700 per month in Ontario Disability Support Program benefits as a single person. At the time of this hearing, she was looking for a job but said that she would need to resolve her housing situation first. While she did not have other financial obligations, she also had no savings and expected to pay rent in the future. She estimated spending $40-80 a week on dog food.
35The applicant stated that she did not have a veterinary clinic nearby that provides discounted services to low-income individuals. She indicated that she would need to pay $131.88 for veterinary examinations but that weight checks were free. She said she would have to figure out how to transport the dogs to their appointments, but I note there was some evidence that a family member could help in this regard.
36With respect to her financial situation, I find that the applicant was taking positive steps by working with her service worker to develop a budget and a savings plan. She had also opened a new bank account to prevent other individuals from accessing her social assistance payments. She had also purchased dog food.
37Despite these positive developments, I do have concerns about the applicant’s ability to pay for the dogs’ ongoing medical care. There is evidence that the applicant was previously reluctant and unable to seek veterinary care for her two dogs because of her financial situation, which has not improved. While there was evidence that one of the dogs, Tucker, had been seen by a veterinarian and was up to date on his vaccinations, there were no veterinary records for Maxwell, and Tucker had untreated wounds when he was removed. In addition, the applicant’s voicemail to Inspector Robillard confirms that she intended to postpone the veterinary examinations because she could not afford them. As a result, I find it more likely than not that the applicant’s financial situation will continue to impact her ability to cover veterinary expenses.
38I also considered the respondent’s evidence from two recent exams at Mildmay Veterinary Clinic, which suggested that ongoing veterinary costs were likely. The dogs had gained weight and Tucker’s wounds had healed1. However, both were still underweight. Maxwell’s weight gain had stalled, and the medical records contained notes about further testing for Maxwell to see if there were other explanations for his thin body condition.
39Given the likelihood of further check-ups, I did not have sufficient evidence to find that the applicant could cover the cost of ongoing veterinary care. This contributed to my decision to deny the application.
Applicant’s willingness to provide care
40As mentioned previously, the respondent’s decision to keep the animals in care referred to the applicant’s inability or unwillingness to understand that her dogs were in distress, and that this was a reason for keeping them in care. It was also clear from text messages and voicemails to Inspector Robillard that the applicant insisted for some time that her dogs were fine and shouldn’t have been removed.
41The applicant apologized to Inspector Robillard during the hearing. She acknowledged that she was angry and stressed during their interactions because she did not know what was going to happen. I accept that the applicant was genuine in taking responsibility for her actions and well-intentioned in her efforts to have the dogs returned to her. It is open to the applicant to file another application with the Board if there is a material change in circumstances.
ORDER
42Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)2 of the PAWS Act, I deny the application and decline to order the return of the animals.
Released: February 21, 2025
Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair