Katy Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 135

Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2025-01-15

Appeal 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: January 15, 2025

OVERVIEW

1This matter involves a flock of approximately 40 sheep owned by Katy Touchette (Appellant). The animals were housed in a barn in a farm in Milford, Ontario.

2In November of 2024, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) issued a Decision to Keep the Animals in Care (Keep in Care) to the Appellant on the basis that keeping the sheep in care was necessary to relieve their distress and that they may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant. The sheep were previously subject to an Order requiring the Appellant to provide them with adequate feed, have them seen by a veterinarian (with special attention to body health, lethargy and poor quality of coat), and for the Appellant to follow all veterinary instructions. Further, that the barn be cleared of remnants of deceased animals and debris. The sheep were subsequently removed from the Appellant’s care for failure to comply with the Order.

3On December 7, 2024, the Appellant appealed the Keep in Care decision to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on the basis that she believed that the sheep had adequate, food, water, shelter and care. The matter proceeded to a hearing on January 15, 2025.

ISSUES

4The issues to be decided are:

1. Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that it was necessary to keep the sheep in care to relieve their distress?

2. Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that the sheep may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant at the time the Decision to Keep was made?

RESULT

5For the reasons that follow, the Board:

1. Finds the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe it was necessary to keep the sheep in care to relieve their distress;

2. Finds the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the sheep may be placed in distress if they were returned to the Appellant at the time the Decision to Keep was made; and

3. Dismisses the appeal of the Keep in Care decision and declines to order the sheep returned to the Appellant.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Keep in Care Decision-Necessary to Relieve Distress

6Distress is defined under s.1(1) of the PAWS Act as being:

1. In need of proper care, water, food or shelter;

2. Injured, sick, in pain or suffering; or

3. Abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.

7Section 31(6)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) permits the Respondent to keep in care an animal that was removed under s. 31(1) if the Respondent determines that it is necessary to relieve the animal’s distress.

8Further, Ontario Regulation 444/119 “Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements” made under the PAWS Act, provides minimum standards of care for animals. Section 3(1) provides standards of care for adequate and appropriate food and water, s. 3(2) sets out the standards for space and enabling an animal to move naturally and to exercise, as well as sanitary conditions and ventilation, and s. 3(3) pertains to care necessary for an animal’s general welfare. If the standards of care as set out in the Regulation are not met, then the improper care may cause distress.

9In making a determination as to whether the Keep in Care decision was necessary to relieve the sheep’s distress, the Board considered the conditions of the environment the sheep were found in upon removal as well as the poor health that they were found to be in.

10At the hearing, AWS Inspector Jamie Boudreau gave evidence that on November 12, 2024, she had initially conducted an inspection of the barn where the sheep were housed pursuant to s. 29(1) of the PAWS Act due to concerns of critical distress. There had been calls regarding the sheep being confined in a barn without food and water with one laying on its back with its feet in the air.

11Upon inspection, Inspector Boudreau found the barn dark and unsanitary. There was water available for the flock but no visible food. She also noted a buildup of feces and bones of deceased sheep scattered around the barn. The flock appeared lethargic, with poor body and coat condition with their spines protruding from their bodies. They would not move without being nudged. One sheep was found on its back and believed to be dead or dying.

12On November 13, 2024, an Order was issued by AWS to the Appellant pursuant to s. 30(1) PAWS Act. The Order required:

1. Provide the sheep with adequate feed;

2. Have the sheep seen by a veterinarian with special attention to overall health, body condition, lethargy, poor coat quality and coat loss;

3. Follow all veterinary instructions and provide AWS with the veterinarian examination records and treatments; and

4. Have the sheep enclosure cleared of remnants of deceased animals and debris.

13A second AWS inspection took place on November 14, 2024, and the conditions remained the same with the sheep having no veterinary care and still no food.

14The sheep were subsequently removed for the Appellant’s failure to comply with the Order and taken to a foster farm for medical treatment where they were examined and cared for by Dr. Kendrick Hammond, DVM, of St. Lawrence Veterinary Hospital.

15Dr. Hammond testified that upon initial examination of the flock, he immediately noted that the sheep demonstrated signs of starvation. The were quiet, depressed, did not interact, lay down and were ravenous, trying to eat anything they could get. Two of the sheep were in such poor condition that one died on its own and another had to be euthanized.

16Dr. Hammond conducted hands on examinations of the sheep, which revealed low body condition score. They were suffering from poor nutrition and feces tests revealed a high parasite load. He concluded that the flock had a “high level of gastrointestinal illness” that was likely due to “a prolonged and continuous neglect”, which had likely occurred over two to three months.

17Dr. Hammond explained the importance of a Famacha score as a diagnostic tool used to assess anemia in sheep. This tool evaluates the colour of the mucous membranes in the lower eyelid of the animal, to estimate the level of anemia and determine when deworming is necessary. Dr. Hammond explained that scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating more significant the anemia. He stated evaluating sheep this way is a standard step that anyone caring for sheep should be aware of and perform with regularity.

18Dr. Hammond’s evidence was startling, as he testified that the Famacha score of the sheep ranged from 1 to 2, which reflected significant anemia to very severe and life threatening anemia. He also explained that anemia was caused by the barber pole worm in sheep and goats and that simple deworming could have prevented it.

19Dr. Hammond opined that if the Appellant had been meeting and maintaining the standard of care required for these sheep, she would have looked for symptoms of anemia by regularly checking the colour of the sheep’s lower eyelids for paleness and dehydration. She also would have conducted regular body condition checks and fecal tests to identify the need for corrective action such as changing their nutrition and separating the sheep that had different nutritional needs as well as having them examined by a veterinarian to tend to their medical needs.

20The Board also heard evidence from AWS veterinarian, Dr. Bruce Robertson, DVM, who reviewed the post-mortem examination reports of the sheep that had died as well as the one that was euthanized following removal (necropsy reports). He testified that the post-mortem diagnosis was tricavitary serous effusion, which was such severe starvation that the fat in the bone marrow of the sheep had broken down into water.

21Dr. Robertson testified that the Appellant’s failure to recognize the signs of parasitic infection and starvation led to a state of distress. He opined that the Keep in Care decision was necessary to relieve the sheep of distress by providing them with the care that they needed.

22When questioned about these issues, the Appellant was skeptical about the veterinarian’s opinion that the sheep were found in distress and needed immediate veterinary attention. She stated that she checked in on the sheep the night before Inspector Boudreau’s inspection and they “seemed ok”. She noticed some had lost weight and were losing wool but she did not think it was something that needed to be addressed urgently.

23The Appellant claimed to have a veterinarian-client relationship with a retired ruminant veterinarian, Dr. John Hancock, however there was no evidence of this. In fact, Dr. Hancock attended at the barn on the day the sheep were removed, but refused to give the sheep care.

24The Board finds that if the Appellant wanted to bring forth evidence that the Keep in Care Decision was unreasonable, she could have called a veterinarian as a witness to provide evidence and an opinion. She did not do so.

25The Board accepts the Respondent’s veterinary evidence that the sheep were in distress and that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to keep the sheep in its care to relieve them of their distress. The veterinary evidence provided fact driven analysis of their opinions as to why the Keep in Care Decision was necessary.

Issue 2: Keep in Care Decision-The Sheep may be Placed in Distress if Returned to the Appellant

26Dr. Hammond testified that he had concerns about the sheep returning to the Appellant’s care. Specifically, he stated that the Appellant failed to recognize and/or ignored strong warnings of the sheep’s deterioration, including white gums, white eye membranes, lethargy, and weight loss. He testified that it was this failure that led to the dire health condition that the sheep were found in by AWS. He stated that it would be concerning to allow the sheep back into the care of the Appellant as she had deprived them of “the basic necessities of life.”

27The Appellant provided testimony on her own behalf in which she acknowledged that the barn where the sheep were found was unsuitable. She claimed to have found a new barn to move the sheep to once they were in her care again. She did not, however, provide any evidence as to the existence of the new accommodations or its features and particulars that would make it a more suitable place for the sheep to live and where they would not be in distress.

28With respect to her experience as a sheep owner, she testified that prior to acquiring the subject flock, she had no real experience with sheep and relied heavily on “friends who are famers” for advice, including veterinary advice.

29When questioned about the loss of wool, the Appellant claimed that she did not believe that the wool loss was a consequence of poor health but was merely the larger sheep eating leaves off the smaller sheep’s backs and accidentally plucking their wool out.

30The Appellant testified that she did not believe that the sheep were suffering from starvation despite the medical evidence and their protruding spines. She described her feeding schedule as giving them a 5 x 5 round bale of hay every 3 to 4 days, depending on how quickly the 40 sheep ate it. Once the sheep had finished this bale, they had to wait the few days until it was replenished. The Appellant did not think there was anything wrong with this method of feeding and stated that this feeding schedule had always been her practice. She stated that during this hearing, she learned that some of the sheep may need different feed.

31The Appellant testified that she had seen the sheep the night before the AWS inspection and did not find them to be lethargic. She did not see a sheep on its back. She stated that the sheep were walking around and active. She acknowledged that some of the sheep had lost weight, but she chalked this up to the need to be sheared. She stated that once she had moved farms, she would take the sheep for a shearing and for a visit to the veterinarian. The significance of the weight loss and having the sheep sheared is still unclear to the Board. What is clear to the Board is that the Appellant was unable to recognize and/or admit the extensive health issues the sheep were suffering from. She stated outright that she did not believe the health problems of the sheep were related to starvation or poor nutrition.

32Of significant concern to the Board is the Appellant’s convictions regarding her practices and her seeming unwillingness to change her practices. For example, the Appellant testified that the sheep had not been examined by a veterinarian since December of 2022 and she did not think it was necessary for them to have regular veterinary care, including vaccines, because they were kept inside a barn.

33The Appellant further testified that she had no regular schedule for checking for signs of anemia of dehydration, nor did she think it was necessary to do regular hands-on examinations of all the sheep to check for weight loss. In addition, she did not believe that the sheep needed regular deworming because this could lead to immunity to the deworming medication. She did not believe that the flock was suffering from parasitic overload because she did not note any of them to have diarrhea.

34The Appellant also questioned the findings in the necropsy reports as described by Dr. Robertson, since it was her understanding that it was not starvation that had caused the death of the sheep, but rather the parasitic infection that prevented the sheep from absorbing the nutrients in their feed.

35The Appellant provided no evidence or records to support any of her arguments. She also did not present any cogent or credible challenges to the evidence given by both veterinarians.

36Although the Appellant claimed the sheep would be returned to a new and more appropriate barn, she did not provide any evidence of a proper barn, nor did she provide any evidence on how she proposed to change her feeding practices. The Board finds this to be sufficient to establish that returning of the sheep to the Appellant could place the sheep back in distress.

37The Appellant’s lack of experience and knowledge, and her lack of credible sources of knowledge on how to properly care for the sheep, having relied primarily on veterinary advice from friends and other farmers, as well as her reluctance to involve actual veterinarians in the care of the sheep, was sufficient for the Board to find that it was reasonable for the Respondent to believe that the sheep would be placed in distress if returned.

38The Appellant’s evidence disagreeing that the sheep were in need of urgent medical attention when they were found by AWS leads the Board to find that she is not capable of following proper directions and providing adequate nutrition, water and veterinary care.

39The Board therefore finds that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the sheep would be placed back in distress if returned to the Appellant and the Appellant has provided no persuasive evidence to convince the Board otherwise.

ORDER

34Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)2 of the PAWS Act, the Board dismisses the appeal of the Keep in Care decision and declines to return the sheep to the Appellant.