Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: April 15, 2025

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

Between:

Joshua LaPointe Applicant

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 written hearing: February 18 and 19, 2025

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application for Return of an Animal, Board File No. 16515/ACRB. Joshua LaPointe, the Applicant, is the owner of 33 Boston Terriers (Dogs) which he keeps at his residence in Kingston, Ontario (Property).

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

3Inspector Haaima conducted the inspection and determined that the Applicant had not complied with the October 10 and October 17, 2024, Orders. As a result of this non-compliance, Inspector Haaima determined that the Dogs were in distress and issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) for the Dogs.

4On November 26, 2024, the Appellant submitted both an appeal of the NOR (Board File Number 16514/ACRB) along with an Application for Return of an Animal (Board File No. 16515/ACRB) to the Animal Care Review Board (Board).

5On December 23, 2024, the Respondent issued a Decision to Keep in Care for the Dogs citing the Applicant’s history of non-compliance with AWS Orders, refusal to follow veterinarian recommendations, the poor sanitary conditions in which the Dogs were found to be living in and the Applicant not meeting the basic requirements of the standards of care.

6On March 28, 2025, the Board issued its Decision and Order regarding the appeal of the NOR and found that the Dogs were in distress at the time of their removal and dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.

7A case conference was held on January 17, 2025, and the Board subsequently issued a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) dated January 23, 2025, converting this hearing to a written hearing with specific deadlines for both parties to file written submissions with the Board.

8This CCRO also contained a provision that any previous evidence that was submitted by the parties, including any evidence submitted for Board File Number 16514/ACRB (under a previous motion that was granted), would not be considered in this matter and that new evidence would need to be filed for Board File No. 16515/ACRB based on the timelines set out in the CCRO dated January 23, 2025. Neither party made any submissions that relied on evidence that was submitted for Board File 16514/ACRB.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

9The issue in dispute in this matter is whether the conditions that caused the Dogs to be kept in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s (CAWI) care ceased to exist such that the animals should be returned to the Applicant?

RESULT

10Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant has not satisfied me that the conditions that caused the Dogs to be in distress have ceased to exist, and as a result, the Dogs shall not be returned to the Applicant.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Burden of Proof

11Section 38(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act) states that an owner or custodian of an animal that has been kept in or taken into the CAWI’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 CAWI’s care have ceased to exist.

12Geddes v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONACRB 31 (para. 17) confirms that in Applications for Return of an animal, the Applicant has the burden of proof and must establish on a balance of probabilities that the conditions that caused the animals to be kept or taken into care have ceased to exist.

13Section 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 to relieve its distress if an order respecting the animal has been made under section 30 and the order had not been complied with.

14Distress is defined in section 1(1) of the PAWS Act, as the state of 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.

15Further, Ontario Regulation 444/119 “Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements” (Regulation) made under the PAWS Act, provides minimum standards of care for animals. Section 3 of the Regulation sets out basic standards of care for all animals. The Regulations state that every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate food and water, care for its general welfare, a proper resting and sleeping area, sanitary conditions, protection from the elements, and adequate space, light, and ventilation. In Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632, the Divisional Court found that “owners are required to comply with the minimum standards prescribed in the PAWS Act and the Regulation, and, if they do not, their animals are, by definition, in distress”.

Submissions made by the parties

16The Applicant did not submit provide any written submissions to the Board within the timelines stipulated in the CCRO dated January 23, 2025.

17The Respondent submitted their written submissions regarding the Application for Return, which included affidavits by Inspector Haaima, Senior Manager Michael Lycett, Dr. Kyle Goldie, and Dr. Stephanie Dam on or before February 4, 2025, as required in the CCRO.

18The Respondent argues that due to the Applicant not providing any submissions then the Application should be dismissed as they have not met their burden of proof and failed to demonstrate that the conditions that created the distress have ceased.

Should the Application for Return of the Dogs be granted?

19While there were no submissions by the Applicant (who had the onus of proving that the conditions that caused the Dogs to be in distress have ceased to exist), I reviewed the Respondent’s extensive evidence in their written submissions and satisfied myself for the reasons that follow, that the Dogs should not be returned to the Applicant, doing so would place the Dogs in distress.

Applicant’s non-compliance history with Orders issued by AWS Inspectors

20The Respondent argued in their written submissions that that the Applicant has been continually non-compliant with Orders issued by AWS to relieve the dogs of distress.

21In the Respondent’s submissions, they provided the Orders dated October 10, 2024, and October 17, 2024, issued by AWS to the Applicant. These two Orders identified 12 issues that needed to be corrected by the Applicant. These 12 issues are summarized below:

a. Have the dog with open wounds and ocular issues examined by a veterinarian and treat as directed by veterinarian.

b. Have approximately 4 – 6 other dogs with ocular issues examined by a veterinarian and treat as directed by veterinarian.

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

d. Provide veterinarian grade flea treatment (e.g., Advantage) for all dogs over eight weeks of age.

e. Provide all animals with adequate and appropriate palatable water.

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

g. Provide all animals with a minimum of eight hours of natural or artificial light daily.

h. Provide all animals with a clean and sanitary 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.

i. Provide appropriately sized crate or kennels and ensure all are in a state of good repair and are of a texture and design that will not bruise, cut, or otherwise injure the animal.

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

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

l. Reduce ammonia in unit to a safe level by improving ventilation.

22In Inspector Haaima’s Affidavit she describes in detail the Applicant's non-compliance with the requirements of the Orders. This is also supported by the Notice of Non-compliance dated November 13, 2024, as well as her Will Say statement.

Applicant’s lack of providing necessary veterinary care

23The Respondent also argued that the Applicant has displayed a willful blindness to the medical needs of the Dogs, and they should not be returned to him.

24Also included in the Respondent's submissions is a Will Say statement from Dr. Ida Hassanpour who treated some of the Dogs. In Dr. Hassanpour’s Will Say statement, she states that upon examination of the Dog identified as Lincoln she found the dog “to be non-ambulatory and anxious, with a strong odor of urine and feces. His body, limbs and head were covered in multiple puncture wounds and scratches in different stages of healing. His left eye appeared cloudy and non-visual, while the right eye had obvious ulcers and wounds on its surface.”

25Dr. Hassanpour Will Say statement also stated that the Applicant refused to allow for the sedation of the dog while treating the wounds as well as having the necessary tests, diagnostics, and potential treatments for the ocular issues due to financial concerns. Dr. Hassanpour further states that the Applicant wanted the Lincoln discharged even though it was against medical advice regarding the eye issues.

26Inspector Haaima’s Will Say statement that formed part of her Affidavit states that she was by the Applicant that he would not pay for the veterinarian recommended diagnostic tests and treatment of Lincoln’s eye as recommended by Dr. Hassanpour. As a result of the Applicant refusing to comply with the requirements of the Order and relieve the animal’s distress, Inspector Haaima stated that she removed Lincoln from his care and issued a NOR dated October 10, 2024, under section 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act.

27In addition to the removal of Lincoln, Inspector Haaima also included in her Affidavit her involvement in the removal of the dog identified as Patch. Inspector Haaima states that Patch was removed on November 5, 2024, under s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act as it was in distress as advised by a veterinarian due to a severely injured right eye.

Unsanitary conditions in residence and lack of veterinary care

28The Respondence also relied on Dr. Kyle Goldie’s Affidavit, in which he stated the observations he made during his attendance at the Applicant's residence on November 26, 2024, along with providing his expert medical opinion of the unsanitary conditions the Dogs were living in.

29In his Affidavit, Dr. Goldie stated that he observed the floor of the Property to be very dirty with accumulations of dirt, fecal matter, and other debris. Dr. Goldie also stated that there was such a strong smell of ammonia which he attributed to urine, that he found it necessary to use a respirator due to the effect it was having on his breathing, eyes, and throat. Dr. Goldie stated that he observed many of the dog cages lacked appropriate bedding and had insufficient amounts of water, if any at all.

30Dr. Goldie also states in his Affidavit that he observed an ammonia test using test strips, which indicated an ammonia level of 50 ppm. He explained that many of the Dogs had cloudy corneas, which he attributed to chronic exposure to high ammonia levels or trauma.

31Dr. Goldie provided his expert veterinarian opinion based on the results of his examination of the removed dogs and concluded that “the conditions under which the Applicant kept his dogs were markedly unsanitary and hazardous There was extensive evidence of unaddressed medical issues amongst the removed animals. Thirty-three Dogs were removed from Mr. LaPointe’s care, and of them:

− One required treatment for non-weightbearing lameness.

− One appeared to require repair of a laceration on its paw.

− Eleven had scars and lacerations most likely caused by fighting.

− Seventeen had evidence of ocular disease in at least one eye, the most likely causes including trauma, congenital malformation, and irritation caused by chronic exposure to high levels of ammonia. At least 8 dogs appeared to require treatment for ocular disease, and I anticipated that some eyes were so severely affected that they would require enucleation.”

32Dr. Stephanie Dam who provided veterinary examinations and treatment to all the removed Dogs states in her Affidavit that almost every dog had some form of ocular problem and in her opinion indicates environmental concerns in their housing such as hygiene and density, inbreeding and neglect in veterinary care as the eye issues indicate no intervention or diligent care. She also states that several of the Dogs had to have eye removal due to severe ocular disease.

33Dr. Dam also states in her Affidavit that most of the adult Dogs scarring and wounds over their heads and limbs, including open wounds that required medical treatment. Dr. Dam states that it is her opinion that these Dogs experienced repeated fights due to competition in a group over both food and mating due to intact males and females housed together. Dr. Dam further states that with the degree of scarring and damage to the eyes and ears, she suspects neglect in caring for the wounds.

34Dr. Dam further states that in her opinion that there was neglect, poor nutrition, and a poor environment in which the Dogs were housed. She supports this opinion by stating that all the dogs had a strong ammonia smell and fecal staining on their fur along with many of the dog having very long nails, with some individuals having nails that completely curled around and made it difficult for them to stand.

35The Affidavits of Inspector Haaima, Dr. Goldie, and Dr. Dam along with the photographic and video evidence exhibits included in their Affidavits supported the fact that the living area for the Dogs did not meet the basic standards of care including an unsanitary and hazardous living area, lacking appropriate bedding, inappropriately sized or maintained dog crates, not having access to potable water or food, and not providing the Dogs with necessary veterinary care.

Respondent’s decision to keep the animals in care

36On December 23, 2024, the Respondent issued its decision to keep the 33 Dogs removed on November 26, 2024, along with 2 puppies born while in CAWI’s care and cited 2 reasons for that decision.

1. Keeping the animals in care was necessary to relieve their distress (s. 3(6)(a) of the PAWS Act); and

2. They had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Applicant (s. 31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act.

37The decision document reviewed the history of non-compliance with AWS Orders including the Applicant's refusal to follow veterinarian recommendations, the poor sanitary conditions in which the Dogs were found to be living in during different inspections by AWS Inspectors, and the Applicant not meeting the basic requirements of the standards of care.

38The decision also referenced the medical findings regarding the Dogs and how most of them required medication, follow up veterinary visits, monitoring, and other medical treatment. It also states that it is believed that the Applicant does not realize the severity of the animals’ conditions and is either unwilling, or unable to provide the proper care to keep these animals out of distress.

39The Respondent opposes the Application, arguing that the Applicant has failed to show that the dogs can be returned to him and that the Dogs will continue to be in distress if returned.

The Applicant has not satisfied the Board that the conditions that caused the animals to be in distress have ceased to exist

40The Applicant has not provided any evidence that demonstrates that the conditions that caused the Animals to be removed have ceased to exist. He has also not provided any evidence in this proceeding that demonstrates that he can provide the proper necessities of food, water, sanitary living conditions, crating and bedding, exercise and enrichment for the Dogs or necessary veterinary care.

41The Respondent has argued that due to the history of non-compliance, the Applicant’s willful blindness or ignorance to the Dogs' medical conditions, along with the Applicant’s inability to maintain a sanitary environment for the Dogs, the Board should not order the return of the 35 Dogs in CAWI’s care, to do so would place them in distress.

42Therefore, for the reasons given above, and the lack of any submissions by the Applicant to support their application for return, I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the conditions that caused the Dogs to be in distress have ceased to exist and that the Dogs should not be returned to him.

ORDER

43Pursuant to the powers of the Board under section 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I deny the Application and decline to order the return of the animals.