Kimberley Rock-Harris v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 131

Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2025-02-28

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

Between:

Kimberley Rock-Harris

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member

For the Appellant: Kimberley Rock-Harris, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Kateryna Toderishena, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: January 6, 7 and 9, 2025

BACKGROUND

1Kimberly Rock-Harris (the “Appellant”) appealed to the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”), challenging the decisions of Animal Welfare Services (AWS) to remove 10 exotic animals who they identified as being in distress from her property, to keep these animals, and to invoice her approximately $12,000.00 for the animals’ care while in the custody.

2The Appellant appeals the following instruments:

Document

Date Issued by AWS

PAWSACT /section

Notice of Removal

ACRB File No. 16438

October 30, 2024

s. 31(1)(a)

Statement of Account #1ACRB File No. 16435

November 4, 2024

s. 35

Order

ACRB File No. 16496

November 14, 2024

s. 30(1)

Statement of Account #2

ACRB File No. 16495

November 21, 2024

s. 35

Decision to Retain

ACRB File No. 16494

November 21, 2024

s. 31(6)

Application for Return

ACRB File No. 16509

s.38(4)

3The Appellant along with her daughter, Ms. Violet Amber Harris, are the owners and operators of Waddles ‘N Wags Zoological Haven Inc., located in Eganville ON. The Appellant keeps several species of animals at her property. The removed animals included two ferrets, one beauty snake, one rat snake, one pixie frog, one Tokay gecko, two boa constrictors and two wallabies (the “Animals”).

4On October 30, 2024, AWS entered the appellant’s property pursuant to a warrant and, following an inspection, issued a Notice of Removal of Animal(s) (NOR). The NOR was issued because AWS had found the animals to be in distress, and a veterinarian had issued a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of an Animal (the “Certificate”) pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act.

5On November 21, 2024, AWS issued a Decision to Retain notice due to the removed animals requiring ongoing veterinary treatment and care to relieve their distress. AWS also indicated that they believe that returning the animals could place them in distress and cited the Appellant’s challenges in providing proper care.

6AWS issued the Order on November 14, 2024, due to their concern that the three wallabies in the Appellant’s care may have been experiencing similar oral health issues as the two that were removed under the NOR. The Order required the Appellant to have the wallabies seen by a veterinarian and to follow the recommended treatment by November 28, 2024. The Order also directed the Appellant to address the deficiencies listed below by November 28, 2024 for items a) to c) and December 14, 2024 for item d):

a) Provide unlimited access to fresh high-quality grass hay,

b) Provide clean palatable water at all times, add extra water stations to assist with competition,

c) Provide non-toxic browse to assist with chewing to stimulate natural movements and behaviours, and

d) Areas of fencing are too low and need to be appropriate height to ensure animals cannot escape the enclosure (>6 ft.).

7Statement of Account (SOA) #1, issued on November 4, 2024, relates to the boarding and animal care costs including handling, specialized equipment and set-up provided to the removed animals for the period of October 30 and 31, 2024, totalling $4101.90.

8SOA # 2, issued on November 21, 2024, relates to the boarding and veterinarian costs provided to the removed animals for the period of November 1, 2024, to 19, 2024, totaling $8139.49.

9The Appellant appeals the Order, NOR, SOA’s and DTR. She also applies for return of the removed animals.

RESPONDENTS PRE-HEARING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL OF ORDER

10The Appellant consented to this motion to dismiss.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

11The issues in dispute in this matter are:

a) Were the Animals in distress, and was it necessary for the animals to be removed to relieve their distress (ACRB File No. 16438)?

b) Should the Appellant’s Application for Return of the Animals be granted?

c) Have the conditions that caused the animals to be removed and retained by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) changed or improved such that they will not be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?

d) Should SOA # 1, dated November 4, 2024, in the amount of $4,101.90 be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

e) Should SOA # 2, dated November 21, 2024, in the amount of $8,139.49 be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

12The Appeal of the Order was withdrawn on consent of the parties, as the order under appeal was rescinded and replaced by a new Order that had not been appealed.

RESULT

13Based on the evidence before me:

f) In the matter of the Appellant’s appeal of the Notice of Removal, I find that the animals were in distress on October 30, 2024, and it was necessary to remove them from the Appellant’s care to alleviate her distress.

g) In the matter of the Appellant’s Application for Return of the Animals, I find that the Appellant has not satisfied me that the conditions that caused the Animals to be in distress have ceased to exist, and as a result, the Animals shall not be returned to the Appellant.

h) In the matter of the appeal of the DTR, I find it necessary for the CAWI to keep the Animals in its care to relieve their distress, and that the CAWI has reasonable grounds to believe that the Animals might be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.

i) In the matter of the Appeal of the SOA # 1, I confirm this SOA for $4101.90.

j) In the matter of the Appeal of the SOA #2, I confirm this SOA for $8139.49.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Were the animals in distress on October 30, 2024? If so, was it necessary to remove the Animals to alleviate their distress?

14For the reasons that follow, I find that animals were in distress on October 30, 2024, due to a lack of appropriate food, water, and necessary veterinarian medical care: inappropriate environmental conditions for their species (temperature, humidity, lighting): and unsanitary enclosures. Therefore, removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

15An inspector has the authority to remove animals and issue NORs pursuant to s. 31(1)of the PAWS Act, for any animal found in distress. Distress is defined in s. 1(1) as a state of being:

(a) in need of proper care, water, food or shelter,

(b) injured, sick in pain or suffering, or

(c) abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.

16Section 31(1)(a) of the Paws Act further 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 a veterinarian has advised the inspector in writing that relieving the animal’s distress necessitates its removal.

17The appellant did not challenge the medical opinions or the inspector’s evidence about the conditions of the Animals on the day of the inspection. Her position is that if the Animals were in distress at the time of the inspection, it was a result of temporary circumstances, and that removal was not necessary to relieve any of the Animal’s distress. Her evidence detailed the difficulties and challenges she experienced in caring for the animals on her property and the efforts that she made to provide care.

18The respondent submitted detailed evidence of each of the animal’s medical conditions and the observations made by the inspectors during their visit to the Appellant’s property. This evidence was largely unchallenged.

Evidence of the Animal’s Distress

19A number of witnesses testified on behalf of the Respondent as to the observed state of the Animals’ living environment and their health during the October 30, 2024, inspection.

20On October 30, 2024, a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animal(s) was issued by Dr. Pauline Delnatte advising Inspector Pryer that the 10 animals needed to be removed to alleviate their distress.

21Inspector Pryer’s testimony and the Respondent’s photographic evidence clearly supported the fact that the enclosures for the Animals were unsanitary, inappropriately sized, and did not contain enough potable water.

22Inspector Pryer testified that she attended the Appellant’s property on October 30, 2024, at approximately 10:00 a.m. along with Regional Supervisor Rodney Braun, Senior Specialty Compliance Inspector Nicole Pratt, Specialty Compliance Inspector Karmel Smith, Senior Investigator Sam Collins, AWS Veterinarian Dr. Pauline Delnatte and OPP constable Ferguson for the purpose of conducting an inspection under the authority of a warrant.

23Inspector Pryer told the Board that the reason for the October 30, 2024, inspection was AWS becoming aware that the Appellant had acquired additional animals since an enforcement action and removal of 74 animals from the Appellant’s property that occurred in October 2023.

24Inspector Pryer gave evidence of her observations from her October 30, 2024, inspection of the Appellant’s residence. The Inspector testified that upon entering the residence she observed five New Guinea singing dogs roaming freely inside the house. The Inspector further testified that she observed the following animals after a walkthrough of the entire residence being kept inside the residence:

1. Green Iguanas (2)

2. Sulcata Tortoise (1)

3. Rat Snake (1)

4. Bearded Dragon (1)

5. Ferrets (2)

6. Large Green Iguana (1)

7. Boa Constrictor (1)

8. Corn Snake (1)

9. King Snake (1)

10. Taiwanese Beauty Snake (1)

11. Albino Boa Constrictor (1)

12. Spiney Mice (2)

13. Pixie frog (1)

14. Tokay Gecko (1)

Adequacy of Animal’s Enclosures

25Inspector Pryer observed many of the reptile enclosures to be deficient in terms of size, lighting, humidity/temperature levels, appropriate natural features and potable water, overall cleanliness, and location within the residence. Specifically, Inspector Pryer further elaborated on the need for appropriately sized enclosures for snakes and testified that they need an enclosure large enough to allow them to be able to stretch out to their full length. She testified that none of the enclosures for snakes were appropriately sized for that purpose.

26In addition to the need for appropriately sized enclosures, Inspector Pryer also testified that there need to be access to potable water at all times, appropriate lighting – both natural and UV - along with heat lamps to ensure appropriate temperatures are maintained. In addition, the Inspector testified that the enclosures also needed to contain the appropriate features that would enable the animal to carry out its natural behaviours.

27Inspector Pryer further testified that based on her observations of the amount of fecal matter build-up within the enclosures, dirty glass, and visible cobwebs, she concluded the enclosures were not being adequately cleaned.

28The Appellant also testified that she was not expecting AWS to arrive at her property when they did on October 30, 2024, and that the chores related to looking after the animals had not been done which is why the animal’s water dishes were not in their enclosures as they were being cleaned.

29The Appellant also testified that every animal enclosure was clean, but that she might have missed some cobwebs in the corners, and that she did not consider cobwebs as dirty – says she has cobwebs all over her house.

30The Appellant testified that the water bottle for the ferrets is constantly refilled, but that it may have been empty for an extended period overnight as she was sleeping.

31The Appellant stated that she will place a second water bottle in their enclosure.

32The Appellant also stated that she will spot clean their enclosure daily and do a thorough cleaning once a week. She also stated that she will not give them dog kibble to play with and move their enclosure away if necessary to keep them away from the dogs.

33Ms. Rock testified that she had only moved the frog and gecko enclosures from the spot where they are normally located to feed them and that she forgot to put it back after feeding them. Ms. Rock also testified that the locations for the enclosures has heating pads that they sit on along with a light over them but could not recall if it was a UVB light.

34The Appellant testified that she has cured mites in snakes before and spoke about the product that she uses, and it is highly effective. She further testified that she would make changes to the snake enclosures including relocating them, enlarging them, providing climbing structures, providing a heat light, and providing a larger soaking dish.

Physical Health of the Animals

35Inspector Pryer further testified as to her observations with respect to the five wallabies being kept at the property outside of the residence. She observed that there was only a single water pail available for the wallabies and that it was empty at the time of the inspection.

36One of the wallabies appeared to have an infection in one of its eyes – Inspector Pryer could see white build up in the eye along with swelling under the eye in the cheek area.

37Inspector Pryer stated that she was advised that Ms. Violet Amber Harris was the primary caregiver for the wallabies and when she inquired about the eye and possible injury, Ms. Harris said she was not aware of any issues. The Inspector also stated that Ms. Harris informed her that she worked nights and had not yet had the opportunity that day to look after the water for the wallabies.

38Dr. Delnatte testified about her observations during the inspection on October 30, 2024, and her clinical findings from her examination of the Animals on November 6, 2024. She concluded that the animals were suffering from various health issues attributed to lack of water, appropriate feeding and necessary heat and UVB lighting.

39Dr. Delnatte was qualified as an expert witness and provided her expert opinion regarding both the health status and environmental conditions for the Animals along with her observations that she made while inspecting the residence and property on October 30, 2024.

40Dr. Delnatte testified that she found the housing and care for the animals as inappropriate due to a general lack of cleanliness, sanitation, in a poor state of repair with some hazardous conditions, along with a lack of appropriate food and water. Dr. Delantte also testified that there were inappropriate environmental conditions for the species (i.e., temperature, lighting, humidity) and/or inadequately sized or featured enclosures.

41Dr. Delnatte provided very specific and detailed testimony about her observations regarding both environmental and medical issues along with her opinion of the impact these issues had on them for each of the animals that were subject to the NOR. The following is a summary of her testimony based on the individual animal species:

1. Ferrets

The ferrets lacked the necessary enrichment, separation from other animals, access to nutritious food, access to water and were living in an unsanitary environment. Their body condition score was very low (2-3 on a 9-point scale), showing signs of severe dehydration and nutritional deficits. Dr. Delnatte testified that the ferrets were in distress as a result of their environmental and medical condition.

2. Wallabies

The five wallabies lacked access to potable water and their exterior enclosure was insufficient to contain them due to inadequate height in some areas and the interior enclosure had unsanitary bedding. Dr. Delnatte determined that two of the wallabies needed to be examined on site, both of which needed to be anesthetized to allow for this. Wallaby #1 had a body condition that was very poor and a severe eye infection, and Wallaby #1 and #2 appeared to have severe dental disease and were suffering from dehydration.

Dr. Delnatte concluded that the condition of the straw in the shed indicated that a thorough cleaning of the soiled straw had not been completed for weeks and possibly months. Dr. Delnatte also stated that dental disease such as abscesses and ulcerations due to abnormal dental points are painful conditions and that both wallabies needed dentistry procedures to relieve their pain and reduce the risk of further infection. It was her opinion that the Appellant’s failure to address this painful condition illustrated either a lack of understanding, experience, knowledge or the financial ability or access to necessary specialized veterinary care to properly care for the wallabies.

3. Snakes (two boa constrictors, two ratsnakes)

The four snakes were all being kept in unsanitary enclosures that were too small and did not allow them to self-regulate their body temperature. The snakes were not provided with sufficient amounts of potable water, lacked necessary climbing features needed so they could express their natural behaviours and two of the enclosures were located in stress inducing areas within the residence.

Dr. Delnatte further stated that the two boa constrictors were suffering from mite infestations and had clinical signs of anemia and that the two ratsnakes had a body condition score of 3 out 9 along with poor muscle mass and were dehydrated indicating that they were not being fed appropriately. Dr. Delnatte stated that reptiles have a low metabolism and that a thin reptile such as the two ratsnakes indicates a chronic condition which she believes is due to long term neglect and prolonged absence of medical attention.

4. Juvenile Tokay gecko and African pixie frog

Both the gecko and the pixie frog were found in unsanitary enclosures lacking both proper heat and UVB lighting along with no access to potable water both for drinking as well as soaking.

Dr. Delnatte stated that for both animals, water is critical for hydration and proper skin function and that both animals were dehydrated due to this lack of access to drinkable water including their ability to submerge themselves in water. She further stated that UVB lighting is critical and essential for these two growing juvenile animals to absorb necessary vitamins and minerals.

42Dr. Delnatte examined the animals again on November 6, 2024, and found that all the Animals have shown improvement in terms of their health, behaviours, and improvements of their medical conditions. Dr. Delnatte also stated that for the wallaby #1 it was necessary to provide specialized care including the need to surgically remove several teeth and for wallaby #2 it had its teeth trimmed as required. She further advised that the coat quality, weight, and muscle mass have markedly improved since the procedure, and she is eating normally.

43Inspector Pryer testified that she issued the NOR based upon both her own observations of her inspection along with the advice of Dr. Delnatte regarding which animals needed to be removed due to them being in distress and needing veterinarian medical care.

44The Appellant did not challenge the expert veterinarian’s opinions as to the medical condition of the Animals at the time of the inspection. The focus of her testimony was on her reliance on others to provide her with information about the animals’ specific medical concerns and past attempts she made to provide medical care based on her own knowledge and experience she had gained over the year in owning and caring for animals such as these.

45Specifically, the Appellant testified that the wallabies were certified as healthy when they arrived on her property in September 2023, and she relied on the farm where the wallabies came from and another wallaby rescue farm for information regarding the care of wallabies .The Appellant testified that she was told she only needs to keep an eye out for lumpy jaw and that wallabies did not need annual veterinary care and keep an eye on their weight.

46Under cross examination, the Appellant testified that she believed that the ferrets’ health conditions were caused by Ferret Adrenal Disease (FAD) and that she believed the cost of treatment for this was very expensive – thousands of dollars - and would probably have the female ferret put down due to the treatment cost if her health conditions got worse. Ms. Rock stated that she was not aware that FAD could be treated with an Adrenal implant and was very surprised at the relatively small cost of treatment ($300.00 for both ferrets). Ms. Rock testified that she has had approximately 40 ferrets and that the veterinarian she took most of them to did not inform her of this treatment option. Ms. Rock also stated that she had many ferrets that had FAD euthanized.

47The Appellant also testified under cross examination that she had difficulty in finding a veterinarian for the wallabies and reptiles, that she only had a veterinarian for the ferrets and other small animals.

48The Appellant further testified during cross examination that only herself and her daughter Violet Harris looks after all the animals. She further testified that her daughter looks after the outdoor animals during the winter months as she is not physically able to due to snow. She further testified that her daughter works full time and looks after them when she gets home from work and that it is challenging to look after all the animals with only the two of them.

49I find that the Animals were in distress at the time of the inspection on October 30, 2024, and it was necessary to remove them.

50I was persuaded by the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses - Inspector Pryer and Dr. Delnatte - and the photographic evidence presented showed the poor living conditions of the Animals and their overall health and medical issues were causing distress.

51The Respondent’s evidence of specific distress was persuasive and consistent with the Appellant’s own testimony in which she acknowledged that it was a challenge to look after all the animals on the property and find species appropriate veterinary care.

52Therefore, the Animals were in distress and needed to be removed to alleviate their distress due to inappropriate conditions in which they were housed, not provided with sufficient food and water, and not being provided with the necessary veterinary medical care.

Issue 2 – Should the Appellants Application for Return of the Animals be granted?

53For the reasons that follow, I find that the Animals should not be returned to the Appellant because they have not demonstrated that the conditions that caused the Animals to be removed have ceased to exist. The Appellant has not demonstrated that they can provide the Animals with the proper necessities of food, living conditions or veterinary care and that returning these Animals who require on-going veterinary care to relieve their distress to the Appellant may place them in distress.

54Section 38(4) of the PAWS Act states that an owner or custodian of an animal that has been kept in or taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care may apply to the Board by notice in writing to have the animal returned if the conditions that caused the animal to be kept or taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care have ceased to exist.

55Inspector Pryer testified that she had advised the Appellant via an email dated November 29, 2024, of the requirements that needed to be addressed to AWS’ satisfaction before they would consider the return of the Animals, and that she had not received the requested information. These requirements included the following:

a) detailed feeding schedule and diet for each animal,

b) a cleaning schedule,

c) what methods would be used to ensure adequate and appropriate temperature, UVB levels and humidity,

d) how veterinary care would be provided and the funds to support looking after these animals,

e) photos as proof that adequate and appropriate housing for each animal had been created.

56Dr. Delnatte provided her expert opinion that none of the 10 animals should be returned to the Appellant and to do so would place them in an unacceptable risk of distress. Dr. Delnatte further testified that she was of the opinion that the Appellant’s property is not equipped to properly house these exotic animals and that the Appellant either has a lack of knowledge, expertise and skills or an unwillingness to properly care for these animals.

57Dr. Delnatte further testified that most of the animals are being closely monitored and remain under active veterinary care to ensure their recovery from their health issues.

58The Appellant testified that she has corrected all of the issues related to the inappropriate enclosures. She has provided the appropriate UVB lighting for temperature control, and will clean the enclosures more frequently. However, the Appellant provided no evidence to substantiate the claims she made during her testimony that she had corrected all of the problems with the enclosures for the Animals. Nor has she provided the requested information to AWS as detailed in the November 29, 2024, email from Inspector Pryer.

59The Appellant also testified that she did not have a veterinarian or know of one who could provide veterinary care to the reptiles and that she did not have a functioning motor vehicle to transport the animals to a veterinarian if she needed to.

60The Appellant has not demonstrated that the conditions that caused the Animal’s distress have been corrected, including their ability to properly feed them, provide and maintain their living environment or that they are able to ensure that proper veterinary care is provided.

61Based on the evidence presented regarding the Appellant’s application for return of the animals, I find that conditions that caused these Animals to be removed by AWS have not ceased to exist.

Issue 3 – Have the conditions that caused the animals to be removed changed or improved such that they will not be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?

62Section 31(6) of the PAW Act states “The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may decide to keep an animal that was removed under subsection (1) or (2) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care if,

(a) the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector determines it is necessary to relieve the animal’s distress; or

(b) the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that,

(i) the animal may be placed in distress if returned to its owner or custodian, or

(ii) the animal may be trained to fight another animal if returned to its owner or custodian.

63The Appellant provided no additional or new evidence regarding this appeal beyond what was provided in regard to the Appellant’s Application for Return of the Animals and as detailed in [59] above.

64The evidence of Regional Supervisor Braun is that prior to the issuance of the DTK he reviewed the following documentation:

a) Keep in Care Request form from Inspector Pryer that identified the medical/health concerns as well as environmental concerns that were identified at the time of removal and that the Animals required on-going veterinary care.

b) Duty notes of Senior Investigator Sam Collins, Major Case Investigator Young and Specialty Compliance Inspector Pryer.

c) Veterinarian Certificate signed by Dr. Delnatte.

d) Notice of Removal, Housing Logs and Compliance Orders.

65Regional Supervisor Braun testified that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the Animals were in distress at the time of removal and would be placed back in distress if returned to the Appellant due to the conditions that caused the removal of the Animals had not changed or improved.

66Therefore, given my earlier findings that the animals were in distress at the time of their removal; that the conditions that caused their distress have not ceased to exist; and that the Animals require on-going veterinary care which the Appellant has demonstrated they are not able to provide; I find that there is no basis to return the animals because doing so would return them to a situation of distress.

ISSUE 4 - Should SOA # 1, dated November 4, 2024, in the amount of $4101.90 be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

67I find that the costs set out in this SOA reflects the actual costs of necessities and are reasonable. I have no information from the Appellant that would persuade me to vary or revoke this SOA.

68The Respondent has the evidentiary burden to show that the costs in SOA #1 for $4101.90 were reasonable and necessary.

69Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act permits the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to serve the owner or custodian of an animal a statement of account respecting any costs incurred in relation to the animal if the costs incurred in relation to any of the following circumstances:

1. An animal welfare inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress under section 33.

2. An animal welfare inspector has removed the animal from the place where it was under subsection 31(1) or (2).

3. The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept the animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 31(6) or taken the animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 44(8).

70Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act states that for purposes of subsection (1), the costs may include but are not limited to the following:

1. Costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress.

2. Costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care.

3. Costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed.

4. Costs of providing care for an animal that the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept or taken into care.

5. Costs of taking any prescribe action in relation to the animal.

71Inspector Pryer testified that the costs identified in SOA #1 reflect the costs associated with the removing and transporting the removed Animals by Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo staff as well as staff from Riverview Park and Zoo. In addition to these costs, the SOA also includes the costs charged by Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo for the one-time cost of setting up the appropriate enclosures for each animal as well as the costs for providing the appropriate care to the Animals and boarding costs.

72Inspector Pryer also testified that the facility at Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo has been inspected by AWS and that both vendors are well known to AWS and frequently used by AWS when exotic animals such as these Animals are involved. She further testified that the cost charged by these two vendors are reasonable and based on her experience in line with industry standards.

73Inspector Pryer went over the costs in detail set out in the November 4, 2024, SOA including the two invoices that vendors submitted to AWS associated with the removal, transportation and boarding of the animals. These invoices included the following details:

Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo charges:

1. Removal of the Animals (2 staff x 7 hours @ $45.00/hr) - $630.00

2. Transportation costs* (351 km @ $0.52/km) - $182.52

3. Set up costs of enclosures for the Animals - $1000.00

4. Boarding costs (2 days @ $25.00/day x 10 animals) - $500.00

Total costs including HST - $2613.15

Riverview Park and Zoo charges:

1. Removal of the Animals – assisted with removal of Wallabies (staff time of 30 hours @ $50.00/hr) - $1500.00

2. Travel/tidy up & sanitation* (7 hours @ $50.00/hr) - $350.00

3. Transportation costs* (635 km @ $0.40/km) - $254.00

4. Meals and accommodations* - $534.30

Total costs including HST - $2878.80

• None of these charges were billed to the Appellant.

74Inspector Pryer testified that the combined total of these two invoices was $5491.95 but that some of the costs charged by the vendors were costs not recoverable from the Appellant. She testified that for the charges from Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo with the mileage cost of $182.52 was not charged to the Appellant. She further testified that the charges from Riverview Park and Zoo that only the charge of $1500.00 for the removal of the animals was charged to the Appellant. The total amount to these non-recoverable charges totaled $1390.05. This reduction of costs resulted in the amount of $4101.90 shown in the SOA.

75The Appellant provided no evidence to show that the costs were unreasonable or not necessary. Ms. Rock stated that she believed the animals did not need to be removed and that she should not have to pay these costs.

76Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent, I find that the costs incurred for the removal and boarding of the Animals from the property and for relieving their distress are reasonable and necessary and I confirm the SOA in the amount of $4101.90.

ISSUE 5 - Should SOA # 2, dated November 21, 2024, in the amount of $8139.49 be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

77I find that the costs set out in this SOA reflects the actual costs of necessities and are reasonable. I have no information form the appellant that would persuade me to vary or revoke this Statement of Account.

78Inspector Pryer testified that the costs identified in SOA #2 reflect the costs for the boarding of the Animals between the dates of November 1 – 19, 2024, along with veterinary costs associated with providing necessary diagnostic testing and veterinary care for the Animals.

79Inspector Pryer went over the costs in detail set out in the November 21, 2024, SOA including the three invoices that vendors submitted to AWS associated with the boarding, diagnostic and veterinary care of the Animals. These invoices included the following details:

Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo charges:

1. Boarding costs (19 days x 10 animals @25/day/animal) - $4750.00

2. Animal care provided by Dr. Laite - $760.00

3. Mileage for Dr. Laite - $68.86

Total costs including HST - $6295.16

Navan Vet Services charges:

1. Radiographs of wallabies* - $1198.93

*this invoice amount was corrected by AWS as it included a charge of $141.25 for an animal that was not related to this matter.

Veterinarian Purchasing Company:

1. Vaccines and implants - $645.40

80Inspector Pryer testified that the combined total of these three invoices was $8139.49.

81Dr. Delnatte testified that it was her opinion that all the costs associated with the diagnostic examination, care and treatment of the Animals was necessary to identify the health issues for each of the animals. Dr. Delnatte further testified that she also reviewed the invoices and compared the amounts charged to the Ontario Veterinarian Medical Association (OVMA) 2024 Ontario Suggested Fee Guide and found them to be reasonable and consistent with industry practices.

82Dr. Delnatte also stated that she provided a significant amount of time involved with the examination and treatment of the Animals, but as an employee of AWS these professional fees or procedures are not billed to the Appellant. In this matter Dr. Delnatte estimated that the value of these fees if billable would exceed $5000.00.

83The Appellant provided no evidence or testimony to show that the costs were unreasonable or not necessary. Ms. Rock stated that she believed the animals did not need to be removed and that she should not have to pay these costs.

84This is appeal is the same as Issue 4 – an appeal of a SOA but with a different amount and different charges that form the quantum of the amount owing. Therefore, the analysis used regarding this appeal is the same as stated in [65] – [67] above and it is not necessary to repeat it.

85Based on the testimony and evidence presented by the Respondent, I find that the costs incurred for the boarding of the Animals and provide the necessary veterinary care and treatment and I confirm the SOA in the amount of $8139.49.

ORDER

86Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I:

1. Dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR;

2. Dismiss the Appellant’s Application for Return of the Animals;

3. Dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of the Decision to Retain the Animals;

4. Confirm the SOA dated November 4, 2024, for $4101.90;

5. Confirm the SOA dated November 21, 2024, for $8139.49;

6. Order the Appellant to pay $12,241.39 to the Minister of Finance; and

7. Dismiss the appeal in Board File No. 16496.