Tribunals ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
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 written hearing: March 10 and 11, 2025
BACKGROUND
1Joshua LaPointe, the Appellant, resided in Kingston, Ontario and is the owner of 33 dogs (Dogs), including Patch.
2On November 5, 2024, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) removed Patch from the Appellant’s residence in Kingston, Ontario. AWS undertook this action based on Dr. J. Bruce Robertson, veterinarian, issuing a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animal(s) pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) advising that removal was necessary to alleviate Patch’s distress.
3On December 9, 2024, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Respondent, issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to the Appellant. The SOA was in the amount of $3,285.64 for costs related to veterinary care and boarding costs for Patch over a 34-day period between November 5, 2024 – December 9, 2024.
4The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board). A Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) dated January 23, 2025 was issued ordering this hearing to proceed in writing.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
5Should the SOA dated December 9, 2024 in the amount of $3,285.64 be revoked, confirmed, or varied?
RESULT
6The SOA is varied as follows:
(a) Veterinary costs are varied from $2,755.64 to $0.00, and
(b) Boarding costs are varied from $1,530.00 to $405.00.
ANALYSIS
The Statement of Account
7The total amount of the SOA in dispute was for $3,285.64 and is comprised of the following costs:
(a) Boarding Costs: November 5 – December 9, 2024 - $1,530.00
(b) Veterinary Cost: $2,755.64
8The Respondent’s position is that the SOA should be confirmed. The Respondent submitted affidavits by Inspector Haaima, Senior Manager Michael Lycett, an Expert Witness Report of Dr. Bruce Robertson, D.V.M., and a Witness Statement by Dr. Geoffrey Hart, D.V.M., in support of its position.
9The Appellant provided written submissions without any supporting evidence arguing that Patch’s removal was not necessary as he was not in distress. The Appellant also argued that the SOA was unsupported with adequate documentation and sought a detailed explanation and breakdown of the charges contained in the SOA.
10Section 35(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act) makes an animal owner liable for costs incurred by the Respondent in relation to the animal in circumstances where:
(a) An inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress and provide necessaries.
(b) An inspector has removed the animal under section 31(1) or (2); or
(c) The Respondent has kept the animal in care or taken the animal into care.
11Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act provides a list of costs that may be recovered including, but not limited to, costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress, remove and take the animal into care, provide care under a Decision to Keep, and costs to take any prescribed action in relation to the animal.
12Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act, as the 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.
13The Respondent has the initial evidentiary burden to show that the charges reflected on the SOA reflect the actual costs incurred as provided for in s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act and that these costs are reasonable such that the SOA should be confirmed. Once the Respondent meets it evidentiary burden, the onus shifts to the Appellant to prove that the SOA should be varied or revoked on the balance of probabilities: Windrift Adventures Inc. et al. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 43-51.
14For the reasons that follow, the SOA is varied as follows:
(a) Veterinary costs are varied from $2,755.64 to $0.00, and
(b) Boarding costs are varied from $1,530.00 to $405.00.
a) Veterinary costs
15Based on the following, I find vary the veterinary costs in the SOA from $2,755.64 to $0.00.
16In her Witness Statement which formed part of her affidavit, Inspector Haaima provides details of the events that led to the removal of Patch. This included her observations of Patch having a severely bulging and ruptured eye that was extremely red and swollen at time of her inspection on November 4, 2025. Inspector Haaima also affirmed that the condition of Patch’s eye had worsened on November 4, 2024 since the last time she saw him on October 10, 2024.
17Inspector Haaima further affirms that she made the determination that Patch was in distress on November 4, 2024 and removed him from the Appellant’s care under s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act. She also states that prior to removal, she consulted with Dr. Robertson regarding Patch’s eye condition.
18In his Expert Witness Report, Dr. Robertson states that he provided his professional expert opinion that Patch was in distress and that removal was appropriate after having reviewed digital evidence that provided by Inspector Haaima on November 4, 2024. Dr. Robertson then issued a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animal(s) (Veterinary Certificate) to relieve the dog’s distress dated November 4, 2024.
19Dr. Robertson also stated that the digital files showed that Patch had a significant abnormal protrusion of the right eye and that this condition required immediate evaluation by a veterinarian so that a medical/surgical management plan could be undertaken.
20Inspector Haaima states that following removal she took Patch to the Kingston Humane Society for treatment since immediate assessment and treatment was available to relieve the dog’s distress.
21Dr. Geoffrey Hart, veterinarian at the Kingston Humane Society, examined Patch and stated in his Witness Statement that Patch’s eye was “markedly distorted and any and all internal structures were not visible. The dog had no vision in the affected eye and a large, thick crust had formed on its surface, indicative of long-term and chronic condition.” Dr. Hart further states that the eye would never heal and needed to be removed as it would be a constant source of infection and discomfort.
22The Appellant argued in his submissions that Patch’s eye condition was congenital in that it was present since birth and it “did not pose an emergency or neglect situation.” The Appellant further submitted that he had received professional veterinary opinions to support his claims. The Appellant, however, provided no evidence to support his submission that Patch’s eye condition was congenital, and his submissions are not evidence.
23The Appellant further stated he provided care to Patch including “lubricating drops, cold compresses and saline rinses, which are all standard methods to manage his congenital condition.” However, the Appellant again provided no evidence such as expert reports or other any other veterinary documentation to support his position.
24The Appellant also states in his written submission that “there was no indication that Patch was in any pain as no tests were conducted to support that conclusion.” He stated that “as his owner I can attest that if my dog was in pain, I would be the first to know and would have taken him immediately.”
25In the absence of any persuasive or documentary evidence being submitted by the Appellant and based on the uncontroverted expert opinions of both Dr. Robertson and Dr. Hart, I find that the Respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that Patch was in distress on November 5, 2024, and that veterinary care was necessary to relieve his distress.
26However, the Respondent did not provide any testimony or evidence from any of the veterinary experts or other witness confirming what the tests, medications, or treatments were for or that the itemized costs were appropriate or in line with standard industry practice or the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association Fee Guideline.
27As stated above in paragraph 8, the Respondent provided affidavits by Inspector Haaima, and Senior Manager Michael Lycett, along with an Expert Witness Report from Dr. Bruce Robertson and a Witness Statement from Dr. Geoffrey Hart. While I find that these affidavits and Witness Statements support the necessity of veterinary treatment, no evidence was provided to substantiate that the charges reflected in the invoice were necessary or the reasonableness of the charges incurred in treating Patch.
28Also, the invoice dated November 14, 2024, provided by the Respondent that formed part of the SOA has been redacted so that the name of the facility which issued the invoice is also unknown. Also, there is no identification on the invoice that shows the name or any other clear identification of the dog that was being treated was Patch. Further, the Respondent has not provided any explanation in their submission that explains the reason for this redaction.
29For these reasons, I find that the Respondent did not meet its initial evidentiary onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the veterinary costs included on the SOA reflects the costs of providing care to Patch that had been removed and kept in the Care of the Respondent and that these costs were necessary. Therefore, I am varying the veterinary costs on the SOA to $0.00.
b) Boarding Costs
30For the reasons that follow, I vary the boarding costs on the SOA from $1,530.00 to $405.00.
31In the Summary Table that the Respondent provided as part of the SOA dated December 9, 2024, it states: “See the included vendor invoices for details of the costs incurred” and then has two itemized costs – Boarding costs in the amount of $1,530.00 and Veterinary Costs in the amount of $1,755.00. The Boarding Costs entry includes the details on how the amount of $1,530.00 was calculated. It shows a daily rate of $45.00 and is for the period of November 5 – December 9, 2024 which is 34 days.
32The invoice dated November 14, 2024, included with the SOA, contains an amount for the Boarding as $405.00. It further shows that this amount was calculated at a cost of $45.00/day/animal for the period of November 5 to November 14, 2024 which is 9 days. There were no other invoices included with the SOA or in the Respondent’s submissions related to boarding charges.
33Inspector Haaima has provided uncontested evidence in her Witness Statement that the daily boarding cost charged of $45.00/day is consistent with average boarding fees and includes the provision of food, water, exercise, enrichment, and socialization.
34However, the only invoice included with the SOA is the one dated November 14, 2024, which is for 9 days, not the 34 days that were used to calculate the boarding costs as indicated in the SOA. The Respondent provided no additional evidence to substantiate how the additional 25 days of boarding costs were incurred or if the daily boarding rate was the same amount of $45.00/day or a lesser or greater amount.
35For these reasons, the boarding costs are varied from $1,530.00 to $405.00 reflecting the 9 days of boarding costs as per the invoice attached to the SOA.
c) Appellant’s ability to pay
36For the reasons that follow, I find that the Appellant has failed to prove that they are facing financial hardships and unable to pay the SOA.
37The Appellant has submitted that they are on a fixed income and facing financial hardships which should be considered in determining the SOA and amounts owed. However, the Appellant has provided no evidence to substantiate this claim.
38The Respondent has argued that the Appellants claim of financial hardship and limited income should not be considered by the Board due to a lack of evidence to support this claim.
45I agree with the Respondent and find that I am unable to make a finding regarding inability to pay, as the Appellant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are facing financial hardships and are unable to pay the amounts owed.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
46Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I vary the SOA and Order the following:
That the veterinary care cost in the SOA be reduced from $1,755.64 to zero.
That the boarding cost in the SOA be reduced from $1,530.00 to $405.00; and
That the Appellant must pay $405.00 to the Minister of Finance.
Released: May 16, 2025
Mark Sraga, Member