Date: 04/01/2025

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

Between:

Lindsay Fradgley

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Did not attend the hearing

For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel, Christopher Chew, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services (AWS)

Heard by Videoconference: March 10, 2025

OVERVIEW

1The Appellant, Lindsay Fradgley, appeals a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $6,984.26 served by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on January 29, 2025. The SOA relates to costs for care provided to the Appellant’s two dogs by the Respondent, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI), following their removal from the Appellant’s residence.

2The Appellant appeals to the Animal Care Review Board (the Board) on the ground that she lacks the ability to pay the SOA.

3The Respondent’s position is that the SOA reflects the actual costs of necessaries to relieve the two dogs of their distress, and the charges are reasonable as they are consistent with the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Suggested Fee Guides.

BACKGROUND

4On December 4, 2024, AWS Inspector Gary Robillard removed the Appellant’s two dogs pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act) because she failed to comply with an Order issued under s. 30 of the PAWS Act. The Order required the Appellant’s dogs to be examined by a veterinarian. Neither the Order nor the removal were appealed by the Appellant.

5On December 6, 2024, Inspector Robillard served the Appellant with a Decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to Keep an Animals in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (Decision to Keep) pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act. The Decision to Keep was not appealed by the Appellant.

6Following the Decision to Keep, the Appellant filed an application for the return of her dogs, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act. The matter was heard by the Board, which issued a decision on February 21, 2025 (Fradgley v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 127). In that decision, the Board declined to order the return of the Appellant’s dogs because it had concerns about the Appellant’s ability to pay for her dog’s ongoing medical care.

7On January 29, 2025, Inspector Robillard served the Appellant with an SOA totaling $6,984.26. The SOA set out the costs for boarding ($5,739.25), and veterinary services ($1,245.01) incurred for both dogs from the period of December 4, 2024 through January 20, 2025. The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Board.

ISSUE

8Should the SOA dated January 29, 2025 in the amount of $6,984.26 be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

RESULT

9Pursuant to its powers under s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, the Board confirms the Statement of Account dated January 29, 2025 in the full amount of $6,984.26. The Appellant must pay the amount to the Minister of Finance.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Accommodation request

10On February 20, 2025, the Appellant filed an Accommodation Request related to a ground identified in the Human Rights Code that could impact her ability to participate in the hearing. She asked for Jessica Jantzi, a community service worker, to attend the hearing as her support person and assist her with the hearing and filing of submissions. The Accommodation Request was granted by the Board before the hearing, having found that it was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.

Appellant’s absence from the hearing

11The Appellant was not present at the start of the hearing, which was scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.

12The Appellant’s support person, Ms. Jantzi, was in attendance. She advised that the Appellant was aware of the hearing, having spoken with her about it during the preceding week. The Board confirmed that she was not attending as the Appellant’s representative.

13The hearing was delayed from beginning while the Board’s Case Management Officer (CMO) tried contacting the Appellant by phone and email. The phone number indicated on the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was not in service. Ms. Jantzi provided the Board with a different phone number and the CMO was able to leave a voicemail message for the Appellant. The Appellant did not respond. The Appellant had previously responded to the email the Board used in scheduling the case conference but did not respond to the CMO’s attempts to reach her on the day of the hearing.

14The Board considered that the parties had attended a case conference on February 21, 2025 and during it had consented to three alternate hearing dates. A Case Conference Report and Order was issued on February 27, 2025 to the parties listing these hearing dates. A Notice of Hearing was then issued on March 3, 2025 confirming the hearing date of March 10, 2025 and time of the hearing, and call-in details.

15As the Appellant had not submitted an adjournment request, had received the Notice of Hearing, and was not responding to phone messages or email messages from the Board at the start of the hearing, I ordered the hearing to proceed pursuant to s. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 2019. The hearing proceeded after waiting for 40 minutes. When the hearing concluded at 1:13 p.m., the Appellant had still not joined the hearing.

Respondent’s Motion to Adjourn

16The Respondent made an oral motion to adjourn the hearing pending clarification regarding the Appellant’s ability to proceed. The Respondent expressed concerns that the Appellant lacks capacity to act on her own behalf based on reviewing a Certificate of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the Certificate), dated February 14, 2025, certifying that it was the statutory guardian of Lindsay Fradgley.

17I note that the Appellant filed the Certificate with the Board on February 28, 2025. I further note that in the Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO), issued on February 27, 2025, disclosure was required by February 28, 2025, and preliminary motions by March 5, 2025.

18The Respondent had sufficient time to file its motion by the ordered deadline but didn’t. Regardless, I allowed it as it raised an important question about the Appellant’s ability to represent herself.

19I note that the Certificate states only that it is the Appellant’s guardian of her property under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992. I note as well that Ms. Jantzi sent an email to the Board and the Respondent on the Appellant’s behalf on March 5, 2025, in which she stated that the Appellant had been directed by the Public Guardian and Trustee to continue with the hearing without their involvement as the SOA was issued prior to the Public Guardian and Trustee taking over management of her finances. When I questioned her, Ms. Jantzi indicated that the email was based on a conversation she had with the Public Guardian and Trustee. There was no document provided to this effect.

20I dismissed the Respondent’s motion as there was no indication in the materials submitted that the Appellant lacked mental capacity and Ms. Jantzi assured me that the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee had confirmed to her that it would not be involved in this proceeding.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

21In an appeal of a SOA, the burden of proof is on the Appellant to show why the SOA should be revoked or varied. However, the Respondent has an initial evidentiary burden to prove that the costs reflected on the SOA were necessary and reasonable.

The Statement of Account

22The SOA was issued on January 29, 2025 for a total of $6,984.26, and outlined the following costs:

1. Boarding costs of $5,739.25
2. Veterinary costs of $1,245.01.

The Statement of Account reflects actual costs for providing necessaries to the Appellant’s dogs

23For the reasons set out below, I find that the Statement of Account reflects actual costs of providing necessaries to the Appellant’s two dogs.

24The SOA was supported by the following invoices, all including HST:

1. Avon Pet Hospital Invoice date Jan 10, 2025 $272.97 for Tucker – Boreal white fish canine food (25 lb.) provided on December 10, 2024
2. Mildmay Veterinary Clinic Invoice date Dec 18 2024 $274.57 for Maxwell included wellness exam (no date), vaccinations, medications, and a collar
3. Mildmay Veterinary Clinic Invoice date Dec 18 2024 $284.10 for Tucker included office call, discounted (no date), medication and canned food
4. Mildmay Veterinary Clinic Invoice date Jan 10 2025 $243.41 for Maxwell included office call, discounted (no date), vaccinations, medications
5. Mildmay Veterinary Clinic Invoice date Jan 10 2025 $134.47 for Tucker included office call, wellness (no date), and vaccine
6. Tails in Trails Pet Resort Invoice date Dec 31 2024 $3,182.08 for “Premier Suite – Double Occupancy” Dec 4 – Dec 31 2024 (28 days) at $98/day, plus statutory holiday additional charge of $18/day times 4, from December 25 to 26 2024
7. Tails in Trails Pet Resort Invoice date Jan 20 2025 $2,557.17 for “Premier Suite – Double Occupancy” Jan 1 – Jan 20 2025 (20 days) at $98/day, plus statutory holiday additional charge of $18/day times 2, for Jan 1 2025 plus food on January 7 and again on Jan 10 2025

Avon Pet Hospital – December 4 2024

25Inspector Robillard testified for the Respondent and described the body condition of the two dogs. One dog, Tucker, had a very thin body condition, with ribs and hip bones visible, and his front left leg appeared to have red marks consistent with wounds. The other dog, Maxwell, was also very thin with bones prominent.

26Inspector Robillard testified that following the removal of the dogs on December 4, 2024, he took them to Avon Pet Hospital (Avon) for examinations. Medical Reports for the two dogs issued by Avon indicate that Tucker was at Romeo Pet Hospital the previous year and was due for various vaccinations in January 2025. The medical report for Maxwell indicates that he had never been to a veterinarian, and that Avon administered various vaccinations on this basis and treated his wounds.

27Inspector Robillard testified that medical reports issued by Avon verified that the dogs were emaciated. The dogs were weighed, and Inspector Robillard was given target weights for both dogs and feeding plans for them, and food to provide to the boarding facility to help the dogs to gain weight. The veterinarian recommended the dogs be checked in two weeks to monitor weight gain.

Tails in Trails Pet Resort – December 4, 2024 – January 20, 2025

28Inspector Robillard testified that he then transported the dogs to a boarding facility (Tails in Trails Pet Resort), arriving on December 4, 2024. He stated that he gave the boarding facility the veterinarian’s target weights and feeding plans for the dogs, and food supplies. He said the dogs were boarded because they were in distress and needed proper feeding according to veterinarian instructions. He stated that he chose the boarding facility because he had been satisfied with the quality of care provided to other animals in the past, and it was a small facility and therefore able to provide good supervision of the dogs.

29Inspector Robillard testified that the invoices from the boarding facility covered boarding for both dogs from December 4, 2024 to January 20, 2025. The dogs were boarded together in the “Premier Suite” at $98/day because it would allow both dogs to be boarded together, with additional statutory holiday fees of $18.00/day per dog for December 25 and 26, 2024, and January 1, 2025.

Mildmay Veterinary Clinic – December 18, 2024, January 10, 2025,

30Inspector Robillard testified that he took the two dogs to Mildmay Veterinary Clinic (Mildmay) for follow up appointments on December 18, 2024 and on January 10, 2025. Mildmay was used because it was closer geographically to the boarding facility.

31Inspector Robillard testified that the dogs had gained some weight by December 18, 2024 and Maxwell’s wounds were healing. Tucker was administered various vaccinations, and Maxwell was issued a cone to prevent him from licking his wounds. The veterinarian recommended increasing the dog’s daily food intake and recommended wet food to be added, which she provided.

32Inspector Robillard testified that when he took the dogs back to Mildmay on January 10, 2025 the veterinarian recommended changing the food to one that could improve the dogs’ weight gain and increasing their food intake, and revised Tucker’s target weight. Maxwell was prescribed Gabapentin and Trazodone for anxiety.

33Inspector Robillard reviewed the medical records for the dogs and recommendations as described above, which were consistent with the invoices.

34In response to my question regarding the current condition of the dogs, Inspector Robillard stated that by mid-January the dogs were “out of the woods” and eating larger meals.

35Based on the Respondent’s evidence, I find Inspector Robillard’s testimony compelling regarding the need for veterinary care and boarding to relieve the dogs of their distress, having supported these with medical records and boarding was necessary to ensure the dogs received the prescribed care necessary to relieve them of distress. I find that the SOA reflects actual costs of providing necessaries to the dogs, supported by medical reports, and invoices.

The costs reflected on the Statement of Account were reasonable

36For the reasons set out below, I find that the costs reflected on the SOA are reasonable.

37Inspector Robillard referenced the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association 2024 Fee Guide for Small Animal Procedures and the 2025 Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Fee Guide (the Fee Guides), pointing to recommended fees for examinations, vaccinations, and boarding. In all cases, the fees charged were within the recommended ranges.

38Although the Appellant did not attend the hearing and was therefore unable to challenge the reasonableness of the charges, her Notice of Appeal did not indicate that she intended to challenge the reasonableness of the costs.

39In conclusion, I find that the costs reflected on the SOA are reasonable as they were consistent with the Fee Guides.

The Appellant’s ability to pay the SOA

40I make no finding regarding the Appellant’s ground that she lacks the ability to pay the SOA, for the reasons that follow.

41In her Notice of Appeal submitted to the Board on February 11, 2025, the Appellant stated that she cannot afford to pay the SOA as she receives Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits and has no other income.

42The Appellant submitted a Book of Documents (BOD) for the hearing. In its closing submissions, the Respondent asked that I give limited weight to the Appellant’s BOD because she wasn’t present to speak to them. I agree that I cannot consider the Appellant’s BOD as she was not present to point to what is relevant and ask me to enter these into the record as exhibits.

43In deciding whether to confirm, revoke or vary the SOA, I considered section 35 of the PAWS Act, which states that an owner or custodian is liable for the costs of caring for its animals. Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act provides that the CAWI may, from time to time, serve on the owner or custodian of an animal a statement of account respecting any costs incurred in relation to any of the following:

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;
2. An animal welfare inspector has removed the animal from the place where it was.
3. The CAWI has kept the animal in its care under s. 31(6) or taken the animal into the CAWI’s care under s. 44(8).

44Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act provides that costs may include:

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 CAWI has kept or taken into care; and
5. Costs of taking any prescribed action in relation to an animal.

45I find that the Respondent established that the SOA reflects actual costs of caring for the Appellant’s dogs to relieve them of distress, and that the costs are reasonable. The costs reflect the steps taken by the Respondent to relieve the dogs’ distress following removal from the Appellant’s residence.

46The Appellant did not meet her onus to demonstrate that the Board should vary or revoke the SOA, as she did not tender any evidence to support her ground of inability to pay the SOA or to refute the evidence put forward by the Respondent

47For these reasons, I confirm the SOA issued on January 29, 2025 in the amount of $6,984.26.

48Pursuant to s. 35(5) of the PAWS Act, it is open to the parties to come to an agreement to extend the time for payment or reduce the amount to be paid, or both, provided this occurs before the prescribed period of 15 business days following release of this decision.

ORDER

49The Board confirms the Statement of Account dated January 29, 2025 in the amount of $6,984.26. The costs must be paid to the Minister of Finance.

Released: April 1, 2025

___________________________

Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair