Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: March 28, 2025

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

Between:

Joshua LaPointe Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member

For the Appellant: Joshua LaPointe, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Jason Tam, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: January 13, 14, and February 6, 2025.

BACKGROUND

1Joshua LaPointe (the Appellant) is the owner of 33 Boston Terriers (the Dogs) which he keeps at his residence in Kingston ON.

2On November 26, 2024, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) conducted an inspection of the Appellant’s residence pursuant to a warrant to verify compliance with two Orders that had been issued by AWS Inspector Christina Haaima dated October 10, 2024, and October 17, 2024.

3After completing the inspection, Inspector Haaima determined that the Appellant had not complied with the requirements identified in the October 10, 2024, and October 17, 2024, Order. As a result of this non-compliance Inspector Haaima determined that the dogs were in distress and issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) for all 33 dogs.

4On November 26, 2024, the Appellant appealed to the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”), challenging the decision of AWS to remove 33 Boston Terrier dogs (Board File No. 16514/ACRB).

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

5The issues in dispute in this matter are:

a) Were the Dogs in distress on November 26, 2024, and was it necessary for the Dogs to be removed to relieve their distress?

RESULT

6Based on the evidence before me, I find:

That the Dogs were in distress on November 26, 2024, and it was necessary to remove them from the Appellant’s care to alleviate their distress.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Were the animals in distress on November 26, 2024? If so, was it necessary to remove the Animals to alleviate their distress?

7For the reasons that follow, I find that the Appellant’s non-compliance with the Order issued by AWS placed the Dogs being in distress and removal was necessary to alleviate the Dogs distress.

8I find that the Appellants ongoing refusal to comply with the Orders issued by Inspector Haaima and not providing a sanitary and hazard free living environment, providing appropriate food, water, and necessary veterinarian medical care placed the Dogs in distress.

9An 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.

10Section 31(1)(c) 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 an order respecting the animal has been made under section 30 and the order had not been complied with.

11The respondent submitted detailed evidence regarding the living conditions for the Dogs as well as their medical conditions and the observations made by the inspectors and a veterinarian during their visit to the Appellant’s property. The Appellant relied on his own testimony and that of his father’s who had helped/observed how the Appellant cared for the Dogs before and after the AWS inspections.

Respondents Evidence of the Animal’s Distress

12Two witnesses testified on behalf of the Respondent as to the observed state of the Dogs living environment and their health during the November 26, 2024, inspection along with another witness testifying on the clinical findings after removal of the dogs.

13Inspector Haaima’s testimony and the photographs and videos entered into evidence by the Respondent showed an area that was unsanitary and hazardous, lacked appropriate bedding, had inappropriately sized and insufficiently maintained dog crates, and without access to potable water or food. This evidence clearly supported the fact that the living area for the Dogs fell below the standard of care.

14Inspector Haaima testified that she initially attended the Appellant’s property on August 20, 2024, in response to a complaint that AWS had received regarding the living conditions for a large number of dogs at the Appellant’s residence. She further testified that despite multiple attempts over several weeks that the Appellant would not grant entry to the residence to inspect the living conditions for the Dogs.

15On October 10, 2024, at 10:07 a.m. Inspector Haaima accompanied by additional AWS Inspectors and Investigators attended and conducted an inspection of the Appellant’s residence under the authority of a warrant.

16Inspector Haaima gave evidence of her observations from the October 10, 2024, inspection. The Inspector testified that upon entering the residence she observed one Boston Terrier type dog later identified as Lincoln on a couch with several open lacerations and wounds as well as a protruding left eye, and thinning fur on its paws and legs.

17Inspector Haaima further testified that there were a very large number of Boston Terrier type dogs of various colours, ages and sexes being housed in the small attic/loft space of the residence and that some of the dogs were crated and others were roaming free.

18The Inspector also testified regarding the unsanitary and inadequate living conditions that she found the dogs in. This included urine-soaked wood floor resulting in high ammonia smell levels that caused a burning sensation in her eyes, nose and throat and made it difficult to breath, inadequate bedding and excessive fecal accumulation in the dog crates, inadequate lighting, no potable water available for the dogs, inadequately sized crates, three litters of puppies, and 4 – 6 dogs with ocular issues involving cloudy or bulging eyes.

19Inspector Haaima testified that as a result of this inspection she issued an Order dated October 10, 2024. The Order directed the Appellant take the following actions:

a) Have the dog that was observed on the couch with the open lacerations and ocular issues to be assessed and treated by a veterinarian by 4:00 p.m. on October 10, 2024, and,

b) Take action to rectify the unacceptable living conditions for the dogs and their health concerns with a compliance date of 10:00 am on October 22, 2024. These actions included the following.

i. Have 4 – 6 dogs with ocular issues assessed and treated by veterinarian,

ii. Have all pregnant, lactating, nursing adult dogs and all puppies under the age of eight weeks seen by a veterinarian for external parasite treatment,

iii. Provide veterinarian-grade flea treatment (e.g. Advantage) to all dogs over age of eight weeks,

iv. Provide all animals with adequate and appropriate potable water,

v. Provide all animals with an adequate and appropriate resting and sleeping area, including clean, dry bedding,

vi. Provide all animals with a clean and sanitary living environment, free from urine, feces, and any hazardous substances, and maintain environment so dogs are not required to sit, stand or lie in excrement or water,

vii. If kenneled, provide all animals with an appropriately sized crate or kennel that allows animals to move freely, stretch, stand up, turn around, and lie down to the fullest extent of their limbs, ensuring all kennels are in a state of good repair and are of texture and design that will not bruise, cut or otherwise injure the animal.

viii. Provide all animals with adequate daily exercise, age-appropriate and ensure records are kept in which dates, times, amounts and types of exercise, and

ix. Ensure safe and appropriate enrichment strategies, such as toys, appropriate for size, breed and chewing ability.

20On October 17, 2024, Inspector Haaima testified that she issued a Notice of Revocation and/or Replacement of an Order to the Owner of Custodian of Animal(s) (“Replacement Order”) with new compliance dates for some of the required actions that were identified in the initial Order dated October 10, 2024, as well as a new requirement regarding ventilation of the attic space where the Dogs were housed.

21Inspector Haaima stated that she issued this Replacement Order because of a request by the Appellant for more time to comply with the veterinary requirements. These new compliance dates involving veterinary examinations along with the new required ventilation action were as follows.

a) Have the dogs assessed by a veterinarian and provide appropriate treatment according to veterinarian instructions, with special attention to approx. 4 – 6 Boston Terrier type dogs regarding protruding eyes, apparent external parasites, possible skin issues – compliance date of 10:00 am November 28, 2024.

b) Have the dogs examined by a veterinarian and provide appropriate treatment according to veterinarian instructions, with special attention to all pregnant, lactating, nursing dogs, and puppies under the age of eight weeks, re: apparent external parasites – compliance date of 10:00 am November 28, 2024.

c) Regarding all dogs over eight weeks of age: Provide veterinary grade flea treatment as per package directions (e.g., Advantage) – compliance date of 10:00 am November 14, 2024.

d) Reduce ammonia in unit to safe level by improving ventilation – compliance date 10:00 am October 22, 2024.

22On November 5, 2024, Inspector Haaima testified that she conducted a inspection, and found the Appellant had not complied with the required actions as stated in the two Orders. Consequently, she issued a Notice of Non-Compliance Failure to Comply with Order(s) (“Notice”) dated November 13, 2024, to the Appellant.

23This Notice informed the Appellant that there were numerous items of non-compliance with the Order issued by the Inspector. These non-compliance issues included not providing a clean and sanitary living environment, appropriately sized kennels, adequate and age-appropriate exercise and enrichment, and a reduction in ammonia levels inside the residence.

24On November 26, 2024, Inspector Haaima testified that AWS executed a search warrant of the Appellant’s residence, in order for her to conduct an inspection of the residence to confirm compliance with the Order’s dated October 10, 2024, and October 17, 2024. Accompanying Inspector Haaima from AWS were Senior Investigator Joshua Matson, Inspector Eric Goettling and Regional Veterinarian Dr. Kyle Goldie.

25The Respondent played a video that was taken on November 26, 2024, which showed the conditions inside the residence where the dogs were housed in the attic/loft area as well as showing the conditions of the dogs themselves.

26Inspector Haaima provided testimony in addition to the video and testified that upon entry into the attic area she observed numerous issues of non-compliance with proper standards of care for the Dogs including no bedding or if provided it was very dirty and unsanitary, no access to palatable water, no food, unsanitary living environment including urine and feces throughout the floor area and on mats and bedding material. The Inspector also testified that upon initial entry to this area there were multiple dogs fighting, several dogs with multiple open puncture wounds, as well as several dogs with ocular issues including bulging and cloudy eyes that appeared ulcerated.

27Inspector Haaima also testified that there was no adequate ventilation of this area, and an ammonia level reading was taken utilizing a strip test which indicated an ammonia level of more than 20 ppm, which she stated is considered very high.

28During cross-examination Inspector Haaima testified that she observed during her inspection that there were significant amounts of dirt, fecal matter and urine saturated flooring accompanied by a strong smell of ammonia from which she concluded that the Appellant did not regularly clean the floor area.

29Inspector Haaima further testified that the source of the ammonia smell was caused by the Dog’s urine on the floor surfaces and bedding. The Appellant put to the Inspector during cross-examination that the source was the ammonia-based cleaner he used while mopping the floor rather than urine, but the Inspector maintained that based on her experience the source was dog urine.

30Dr. Goldie was qualified as an expert witness in small animal veterinary medicine and provided his expert opinion regarding the health conditions of the dogs along with his observations that he made during his inspection of the attic/loft area of the Appellants residence on November 26, 2024.

31Dr. Goldie’s testimony was based on his observations he made during his inspection of the living area for the dogs as well as both photographic and video evidence of the Dogs’ living conditions.

32Dr. Goldie testified that he observed many hazardous conditions including exposed electrical cords (chewing hazard), protruding nails, broken furniture, risk of fall due to unprotected opening from attic area to floor below and staircase. Dr. Goldie also testified that he witnessed many loose dogs fighting and dogs with apparent bite wounds. Dr. Goldie stated that there was a very strong ammonia smell, and that he observed Inspector Eric Goettling performed an ammonia test using test strips which indicated an ammonia level of 50 ppm.

33Dr. Goldie testified that there were many areas of the floor area that were very dirty with accumulations of dirt, fecal matter, or other debris. Dr. Goldie also testified that there were areas where there were interlocking multicolored foam mats on the floor and that this material was very dirty and emitted a strong ammonia smell most likely caused by urine saturation.

34Dr. Goldie testified that he observed many dogs had cloudy corneas and that he attributed this condition to either chronic exposure to high ammonia levels or trauma.

35Inspector Haaima further testified that after consulting with Dr. Goldie she determined that there was non-compliance with the issued Orders and that the Dogs were in distress due to a lack of food, water, unsanitary living conditions as well as several dogs having ocular issues and needed to be removed to relieve their distress.

36Inspector Haaima testified that once she made this determination that AWS staff then proceeded to crate and remove the dogs and she issued the NOR to the Appellant.

37In total the Appellant has received three NOR’s, but the subject of this appeal hearing is only the NOR dated November 26, 2024, involving the removal of the 33 dogs.

38Dr. Goldie testified about his clinical findings from the triage examination he performed on the dogs after their removal. Dr. Goldie testified that his examination of the 33 dogs revealed the following.

a) One dog required treatment for non-weightbearing lameness.

b) One dog required repair of a laceration on its paw.

c) 13 dogs had a body condition score of 3 or less and needed intervention.

d) 11 dogs had scars and lacerations most likely caused by fighting.

e) 17 dogs had evidence of ocular disease in at least one eye, most likely caused by trauma, congenital malformation and irritation caused by chronic exposure to high ammonia levels and that some of the eyes were so severely affected that they would require removal.

39Dr. Goldie provided his expert opinion that the animals were being housed in a very unsanitary and hazardous area and that several of the Dogs’ medical issues were untreated/unaddressed such that and that the removal of them relieved them of further suffering.

40During cross-examination Dr. Goldie did not agree with the Appellant’s assertion that the injuries to the dogs were only the result of fighting that was triggered when AWS Inspectors arrived on site for inspections. Dr. Goldie’s opinion was that the injuries/wounds and other ocular issues to the Dogs were chronic and the result of unaddressed treatment by the Appellant, not the result of fighting that occurred during inspections by AWS inspectors.

41It was Dr. Goldie’s opinion that the floor area was not cleaned based on his own observations.

42Dr. Stephanie Dam was qualified as an expert witness in small animal veterinary medicine and provided her expert opinion regarding the health conditions of the dogs along with her clinical observations that she made during her examination of the dogs on November 27, 2024.

43Dr. Dam testified regarding her intake examination of 27 of the dogs that were removed on November 26, 2024, these 27 dogs consisted of 22 adult canines and 5 puppies. Dr. Dam provided a generalized summary of her findings for all the dogs she examined. This summary is as follows:

a) Most of the dogs had some type of ocular issue and it was her expert opinion that these issues were chronic and occurred over an extended period and were due to the poor hygiene housing environment as well as density problems resulting in fighting and injuries. There are also genetic concerns due to inbreeding as well as neglect in veterinary care being provided to properly treat eye injuries and that some of the dogs needed to have eyes removed to relieve their pain and suffering.

b) Most of the adult dogs had scarring and wounds over their head and limbs and in her opinion these wounds were the result of repeated incidents of dog fighting that she attributed to competition in the group for food or due to hormones in the group with having intact females and males in the same location. Also, that the degree of scarring and damage to some of the eyes and ears was chronic and had occurred months prior.

c) Inbreeding concerns and poor neonate care – four out of five puppies had congenital defects as well as one male having neurological reflexes and one female with genital abnormalities. Puppies had adult tapeworms and roundworms along with other parasites – this indicates proper deworming not happening with adult females and no dewormers had been given to puppies.

d) General poor hygiene and low body condition scores – poor hair coats, ammonia smell and fecal staining – strong ammonia smell and staining of hair coats attributed due to a high concentration of dogs in an area and exposed to urine and fecal matter over time. Had very long and untrimmed nails – overgrown with some so overgrown it impacted their ability to stand/walk.

44Dr. Dam also testified that the ammonia smell on the dogs was a stale urine smell. When asked by counsel if this smell could have come from ammonia-based cleaner she said no.

45Dr. Dam testified that since removal, all the Dogs have shown improvement in terms of their health, and improvements of their medical conditions after treatment including surgical procedures to remove eyes from five of the dogs. Dr. Dam further testified that a lot of the treatments provided to the dogs amounted to routine veterinary care, especially with so many dogs residing in a single residence.

46Under cross-examination Dr. Dam did not agree with the Appellant’s assertion that the over-the-counter medication amounted to proper eye care or dewormer treatments to the dogs. Dr. Dam provided her opinion that dewormer medication needs to be provided by prescription after fecal testing is completed to determine the type of dewormer that needs to be administered and that over-the-counter medications that the Appellant was using are not sufficient. Dr. Dam further testified under cross-examination that it was her opinion that the eye disease was a result of neglect, and that routine health care was not being provided to the Dogs due to the large number of dogs living in the residence.

Appellants Evidence of Care for Dogs

47The Appellant’s father – Mr. Joshua Campbell LaPointe testified about the level of care his son provided to the Dogs saying that his son looked after his dogs, he did not mistreat them, he fed them and that when the dogs relieved themselves on the floor that he cleaned it up. He also testified that he did not think the Dogs had any health issues.

48Under cross-examination he testified that he was aware that the air quality in the attic area where the dogs were housed was not sufficient at times and that the Appellant was in the process of improving the ventilation of the attic area.

49Mr. Joshua Campbell LaPointe also testified under cross-examination that he was aware that only 6 or 7 of the more than 30 dogs were taken to a veterinarian for examination or treatment after the Order had been issued directing such action. He also testified that he was not aware that the Appellant did not have any of the veterinarian recommended vaccinations or veterinarian care done.

50While the Appellant did not testify, he did provide a written submission to the Board dated January 13, 2025, in which he states that he provided proper care for the Dogs which included providing them with food, water, exercise and stimulation along with maintaining a clean, safe and comfortable living space. The Appellant also submitted that he took the Dogs for regular veterinary appointments. However, the Appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to support their claims of the level of care they provided including veterinary care.

Conclusion on State of Distress

51I find that the Animals were in distress at the time of the inspection on November 26, 2024, and it was necessary to remove them.

52I was persuaded by the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses - Inspector Haaima and Dr’s. Goldie and Dam - the photographic and video evidence presented showed that the Appellant had not complied with the required actions stipulated in the two Orders issued. This non-compliance resulted in poor living conditions for the Dogs causing distress and required their removal to alleviate their distress.

53The Respondent’s evidence of distress was persuasive and consistent while the Appellant’s provided no evidence other than their written submission in which they claim they provided the appropriate level of care for the Dogs. The Appellant’s submission was unconvincing and does not refute the expert opinions, eye-witness accounts and documentary evidence led by the Respondent.

54Therefore, I find that the Appellants failure to comply with the Orders issued by AWS and their continuation of not providing a sanitary and safe living environment, along with sufficient food and water, and necessary veterinary medical care for the Dogs placed them in distress.

55I also find that removal of the Dogs was necessary to alleviate the Dogs distress due to the Appellants unwillingness or inability to correct the issues as identified in the Order issued by Inspector Haaima.

ORDER

56Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I:

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