Tribunals ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
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: February 4, 2025
OVERVIEW
1This matter involves an appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA), served on Katy Touchette, (Appellant) on December 16, 2024, by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) in the amount of $15,129.72.
2The AWS removed a flock of approximately 40 sheep owned by the Appellant from a barn that they were housed on a farm in Milford, Ontario. The SOA covers veterinary care, boarding costs, medication, vaccination costs, transportation costs and specialty feed for these sheep for the period of November 14, 2024, to December 3, 2024.
3AWS had issued Orders under s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, SO 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), requiring the Appellant to provide the sheep 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, the barn was to be cleared of remnants of deceased animals and debris.
4On November 14, 2024, AWS removed the sheep from the Appellant’s care and issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) pursuant to s. 31(1) of the PAWS Act for failing to comply with the requirements of the Order.
5On November 25, 2024, a Notice of Decision to Keep an Animal(s) (DTK) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care was issued in relation to the sheep, pursuant to section 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
6The Appellant appealed the Order and the NOR to the Animal Care Review Board (Board).
7On December 16 and December 17, 2024, the appeals of the Order and the NOR were heard by the Board. The Board issued its decision on those matters on February 11, 2025 (Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 125). The Board was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the sheep were in distress and AWS acted within their authority to issue the Order. As such, the Order was confirmed. Further, the Board found that it was necessary to remove the sheep to alleviate their distress. The appeal of the removal was therefore dismissed.
8On December 7, 2024, the Appellant appealed the DTK to the Board on the basis that she believed that the sheep had adequate, food, water, shelter and care.
9On January 15, 2025, a hearing of the appeal of the DTK proceeded before the Board. The Board issued its decision on that matter on March 13, 2025 (Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 135). The Board decided that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that it was necessary to keep the sheep in care to relieve their distress, and had reasonable grounds to believe that the sheep may be placed in distress if they were returned to the Appellant at the time the DTK was made. The appeal of the DTK was dismissed and the Board declined to order the sheep be returned to the Appellant.
10The Appellant appealed the SOA on December 30, 2024. A case conference was held on January 14, 2025. The matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing on February 4, 2025.
ISSUES
11The issues to be decided are:
- Should the SOA be confirmed, revoked or varied?
RESULT
12For the reasons that follow, the Board:
- Confirms the SOA in the amount of $15,129.72.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
13According to Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI/Respondent) may serve on an animal owner or custodian a statement of account in circumstances where:
An AWS inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress by providing it with necessaries;
An AWS inspector has removed the animal under s. 31(1) or (2); or
CAWI has kept the animal in its care under s. 31(6) or taken the animal into care under s. 44(8).
14Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act states that costs may include, among other things:
Costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress;
Costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care;
Costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed;
Costs of providing care for an animal that has been kept or taken into care; and
Costs of taking any prescribed action in relation to an animal.
15Section 35(3) of the PAWS Act states that an animal’s owner or custodian is liable for the amount set out in a statement of account subject to an order of the Board pursuant to s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act.
Should the SOA be confirmed, revoked or varied?
16The Board notes that the SOA was properly served on the Appellant in accordance with s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act which allows the Respondent to serve on an owner or custodian of an animal(s) a statement of account for any costs incurred in relation to the animal(s) if the costs were incurred in relation to an animal that has been removed by AWS and is kept in the Respondent’s care.
17The SOA includes the costs of transportation for all the sheep ($400.00), boarding costs from the foster farm, Livelihood Farm ($17.00 per sheep for 40 sheep for 4 days and then $17.00 per day for another 15 days for 38 sheep once 2 of the sheep died due to their medical conditions), veterinary costs (exams/diagnostic treatments $1873.51), and animal care costs (special diet, lamb creep $401.21). The total costs listed on the SOA was $15,129.72.
18The SOA was supported by the detailed medical records of Dr. Hammond of St. Lawrence Veterinary Services, which outlined the treatment that the sheep were provided. The treatment included but was not limited to the emergency examinations of the sheep, bloodwork, fecal exams, dewormer, and vaccinations, as well as the day-to-day medical care and attention that they received from November 14, 2024, to December 3, 2024. A detailed invoice was provided outlining the treatment that was provided.
19In addition, a detailed invoice was provided from the foster farm, Livelihood Farm, which outlined the emergency transport costs as well as boarding fees.
20AWS Inspector Lori Lamb gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. She reviewed the SOA and gave firsthand knowledge of the emergency transport and emergency medical treatment that was needed for the sheep. She had arranged the transport of the sheep and the boarding with a foster farm, Livelihood Farm, as this was a facility that AWS had previous experience with. Inspector Lamb testified she chose this foster farm because it could accommodate transporting and boarding a large number of sheep on short notice. Inspector Lamb further testified that the foster farm was only about an hour away from the farm where the sheep had been found. This was important because the sheep were in poor medical shape and could not have handled a long transport. In addition, the foster farm could accommodate quarantining the sheep if necessary.
21Inspector Lamb testified that the foster farm charged $17.00 per day per sheep which covered the emergency placement, daily care, medications, monitoring, bedding, hay, water, and intensive care for the sick sheep.
22With respect to the transportation fees, Inspector Lamb provided evidence that the price covered the transport of the sheep in the trailers as well as disinfecting the trailers following the transport.
23Regarding the boarding costs, Inspector Lamb testified that she reached out to a colleague because she was unsure what a reasonable daily rate was and was told that facilities of $18.00 per sheep per day for healthy animals was typical. As a result, she concluded that Livelihood Farm was “on the low end of normal” with respect to pricing.
24Inspector Lamb also testified that specialty feed was recommended by Dr. Hammond because the sheep were suffering from severe emaciation. This specialty feed is typically given to young lambs because it is highly nutritious and is meant to “pack on calories and carbohydrates and protein”. It is also medicated.
25The Appellant testified on her own behalf. She stated that she had done some of her own research and had found other facilities that only charged $1.00 per sheep for boarding. However, on cross-examination the Respondent noted that she had provided no evidence of this price, nor did she provide any information regarding whether these alternate facilities were specialized in caring and rehabilitating sick sheep. Upon further questioning, the Appellant stated that the alternate facilities were meant for preparing the sheep for sale or for slaughter.
26The Board finds that the Appellant did not provide any documentary evidence or persuasive testimony to indicate that the SOA was unreasonable or excessive.
27The Appellant also did not provide any sort of reason for why she should not be responsible for the costs that were incurred by the Respondent.
28The Appellant testified as to an inability to pay the SOA. The Respondent objected to this since the Appellant did not raise the issue of an inability to pay in her appeal of the SOA. The Appellant did not provide any justification for why an inability to pay was not raised earlier. In her closing submissions, it was requested that if the Appellant is ordered to pay the SOA, that a payment plan be allowed.
CONCLUSION
29I find that the Respondent has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the SOA reflected the actual costs of necessaries and that these costs were reasonable.
30Having considered all the relevant evidence, the Board finds that the transportation costs, boarding costs, veterinary costs and animal care costs are justified and reasonable, especially considering the dire health conditions the sheep were found in.
31I was not persuaded that the SOA should be revoked or varied as the Appellant failed to convince me that the costs were in any way excessive.
32The Board does not have the authority to order a payment plan. The Appellant can approach the Respondent regarding this request pursuant to s.35(5) of the PAWS Act within 15 business days of the release of this decision.
ORDER
34Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board confirms the SOA in the amount of $15,129.72.
Released: March 26, 2025
_______________________
Debra Backstein, Member