Joshua LaPointe v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 146

Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: May 15, 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 in writing: March 12 and 13, 2025

[1] Joshua LaPointe, the Appellant, resided in Kingston, Ontario and is the owner of 33 dogs (Dogs).

[2] On November 26, 2024, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) and removed the Dogs from the Appellant’s residence. AWS undertook this action pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act). After removal, two puppies were born while the Dogs were in custody of AWS.

[3] The Appellant appealed the NOR to the Animal Care Review Board (Board). The Board released is decision concerning the NOR on March 28, 2025, dismissing the appeal. The Appellant also submitted an Application for Return of the Dogs, which was denied by the Board on April 15, 2025.

[4] On December 11, 2024, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Respondent, issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to the Appellant in the amount of $40,302.09 for costs related to veterinary care costs for the Dogs between November 26, 2024 to December 2, 2024, and boarding costs for the Dogs between November 26, 2024 to November 30, 2024.

[5] The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Board. A Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) dated January 23, 2025 was issued ordering this matter to proceed to a written hearing.

[6] Should the SOA, dated December 11, 2024, in the amount of $40,302.09, be revoked, confirmed, or varied?

[7] The SOA is varied as follows:

(a) Veterinary costs are varied from $31,347.71 to $0.00; and

(b) Boarding costs are varied from $8,954.38 to $5,515.80.

The Respondent’s request to not accept Appellant’s written submissions is denied

[8] The Respondent’s request to not accept the Appellant’s written submissions as they exceeded the permitted page limits is denied.

[9] The CCRO placed limits on the length of written submissions not including evidence and authorities. In particular, the page limit for the Appellant’s brief was 20 pages and the Respondent was permitted 20 pages for its initial submissions. Seven pages was the limit for any reply submissions. The CCRO also advised the parties that the hearing adjudicator may choose not to consider submissions which exceed the page limits. On February 21, 2025, the Appellant’s submitted his “brief,” which was a total of 174 pages. The Respondent provided a brief of 10 pages for their initial submissions and 7 pages in their reply.

10The Respondent argued that the Appellant’s brief should not be accepted because it could not reply to the Appellant’s 174-page submissions within the 7-page reply limit. The Respondent further argues that some of the arguments contained in the Appellant’s brief are not related to this appeal and should not be considered. Finally, the Respondent submitted that it is prejudiced due to the Appellant not complying with Board orders and directions in terms of the 20-page limit for written submissions as directed in the CCRO.

11In having reviewed the Appellant’s submissions, I have decided that I will consider the Appellants brief, but only those arguments that are directly related to the charges contained in the SOA. I find that if I were to decide this matter without consideration of the Appellant’s submissions that it would eliminate the Appellants participation in this hearing and would significantly prejudice the Appellant more than the prejudice Respondent claims it will suffer. I also note that the Respondent provided a very voluminous amount of material as part of their submissions, some of which is not related to this appeal, so in fairness to both parties I have decided to accept both parties’ submissions. Therefore, the Respondent’s request that I not consider the Appellant’s written submissions for this appeal is denied.

The Respondent’s claim of prejudice as a result of the written hearing format

12The Respondent argues that converting this hearing to a written hearing has prejudiced them due to their inability to test the Appellant’s evidence by way of cross examination, challenge evidence before being accepted as exhibits, and the Board is not able to determine the Appellant’s credibility through their testimony.

13The Respondent initially raised this concern during the Case Conference as evidence by the CCRO. The Board acknowledged these concerns and allowed the Respondent to make reply submissions to the Appellant’s submissions to eliminate any prejudice to the Respondent. As the Respondent did not ask for any other specific relief as a result of the written hearing format, I find that the Respondent’s concerns were already taken into consideration by the Board and no further action is required at this time regarding same.

ANALYSIS

The Statement of Account

14The total amount of the SOA in dispute was for $40,302.09 and is comprised of the following costs:

Boarding Costs: November 26 – 30, 2024 - $8954.38
Veterinary Costs: November 26 – Dec 2, 2024 - $31,347.71

15The Respondent’s position is that the SOA should be confirmed. The Respondent submitted affidavits by Inspector Haaima, Senior Manager Michael Lycett, Dr. Kyle Goldie, D.V.M., Dr. Stephanie Dam, D.V.M., and a Witness Statement of Dr. Bruce Robertson, D.V.M., in support of its position.

16The Appellant provided written submissions without any supporting evidence, arguing that the costs of the SOA were unreasonable, excessive, and improperly imposed under the PAWS Act. The Appellant also argued that he has financial hardship and is on a fixed income which should be taken into consideration when assessing the reasonableness of the charges but did not provide any evidence to support this assertion.

17 Section 35(1) of the 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

18 Section 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 (DTK), and costs to take any prescribed action in relation to the animal.

19Distress 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

20The 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(2) 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.

21For the reasons that follow, the SOA is varied as follows:

Veterinary costs are varied from $31,347.71 to $0.00; and
Boarding costs are varied from $8,954.38 to $5,515.80.

a) Veterinary costs

22Based on the following, I vary the veterinary costs on the SOA from $31,347.71 to $0.00.

23The following amounts are all the veterinary costs that the Respondent provided in a summary table as part of the SOA.

Invoice #

Invoice Date

Subtotal

Tax

Total Bill

Excluded Costs

Animal ID#

Net Costs

352836

26-Nov-24

$6156.28

$800.32

$6956.60

223,134,132

$6956.60

4-Dec-24

$1203.02

132

$1203.02

4-Dec-24

$124.90

223

$124.90

4-Dec-24

$1488.43

134

$1488.43

218885

29-Nov-24

$932.05

$121.17

$1053.22

221,149

$1053.22

8778

9-Dec-24

$21,930.15

$959.29

$22,889.44

$2367.90

$20,521.54

Total

$31,347.71

24The veterinary costs are comprised of examinations, x-rays, pain medication, various medical treatments including surgeries, and diagnostic tests.

25The Respondent, however, did not provide any testimony from any of the veterinary experts confirming that all of the tests, treatments or medications were required or that the itemized costs were appropriate or in line with standard industry practice or the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association Fee Guideline.

26Further, the six invoices provided by the Respondent in support of the costs set out in the SOA contained redactions that blocked out portions of the invoice details along with the name of the clinic that generated them. There also appears to be duplication of veterinary care costs for some of the dogs along with unexplained discounted amounts shown in the some of the invoices.

27For example, invoice number 352836 pertains to dogs ID as #’s 223, 134, and 132 for consultation fees, diagnostic tests including x-rays, medications, and medical treatments. Inspector Haaima affirmed that the dogs identified as 134, 132, and 223 were identified by Dr. Kyle Goldie, veterinarian, as requiring immediate emergency medical assessment and treatment after their removal. Inspector Haaima also affirmed that these three dogs were transported to the Downtown Animal Hospital for further assessment and treatment due to this being the only local veterinary clinic offering after-hours service, and the dogs required urgent medical care as determined by Dr. Goldie. This emergency medical care was for open wounds and a non-weightbearing lame leg.

[1] Invoice number 352836, however, had portions of it redacted including the name of the veterinary clinic that issued it. Further, there appears to be a duplication of some veterinary care costs for dogs ID as #’s 223, 134 and 132. Invoice number 352836 shows that the dogs ID #’s 223, 134, and 132 were examined and had radiographs done for dogs ID #’s 132 and 134. The amounts charged for the radiographs for each dog is $994.42. The three invoices dated December 4, 2024, show that dogs ID #’s 223, 132, and 134 all received a DVM exam in the amount of $124.90 each, and that dogs #132 and 134 also had radiographs done and the costs of these radiographs are $1,165.00 for dog ID # 134 and $825.70 for dog ID # 132. These three invoices dated December 4, 2024 appear to be issued by a different facility than the one that issued invoice # 352836, but due to the redactions to them it is not possible to determine which facility issued them nor is there any explanation provided to address this apparent duplication of veterinary treatments and the need for them.

28For invoice number 218885, the name of the veterinary clinic that issued it has been redacted out completely along with several areas within the invoice including the portion titled “new balance” so the total amount of this invoice is not shown. Further, this invoice has no clear indication for which dog or dogs the veterinary treatment charges were for. In the summary table it shows that this invoice was for two dogs – Animal ID #’s 149 & 221. However, in the invoice itself it appears to be for treatments to a single dog as it shows a single charge for pet evaluation of $153.33 and shows a single entry under the section of the invoice titled weight history.

29For invoice number 8778, the name of the veterinary clinic that issued it has been redacted our completely and this invoice contains numerous itemized costs for examinations, medications, and diagnostic tests. However, there has been no testimony provided that explains the reason for these costs nor that the costs are reasonable.

30The Appellant has argued in his submissions that the charges were unreasonable or excessive and he further argues that if there is not sufficient documentation or justification for the amount billed, the charges should be subject to revocation.

31I agree with the Appellant because the redactions to the invoices do not show the treating facilities name(s), in some invoices it is not clear to which dog the treatments and charges are for, and there appears to be a duplication of charges for the some of the dogs. Further, the Respondent has not provided a sufficient explanation in its evidentiary submissions that explains the reasons for the redactions nor the apparent duplication of veterinary costs or the reason why or for what the discounted amounts are for. It was open for the Respondent to provide evidence explaining these matters, but it failed to do so.

32For all of these reasons, I find that the Respondent did not meet its initial evidentiary onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the veterinary costs included on the SOA reflects the costs of the providing care to the Dogs that had been removed and kept in the Care of the Respondent and that these costs were necessary. The Respondent has provided uncontested evidence that the Dogs were in distress at the time of their removal and that some medical attention was required. However, s. 35(2) of the PAWS Act only allows the Respondent to recover costs of necessaries, therefore the Respondent is required to establish that the quantum of the SOA reflects these costs. In this case, the Respondent provided no evidence from veterinarians or any other witness that could explain why specific procedures, diagnostic tests or treatments were done, of it they were necessaries. Therefore, I am varying the veterinarian costs on the SOA to $0.00.

b) Boarding Costs

32For the reasons that follow, I vary the boarding costs on the SOA from $8,954.38 to $5,515.80.

33The following amounts are all the boarding costs that the Respondent provided in a summary table as part of the SOA. These boarding included the provision of medical care, food, water, exercise, enrichment, and socialization being provided to all the dogs.

Invoice #

Invoice Date

Subtotal

Tax

Total Bill

Excluded Costs

Animal ID#

Net Costs

241130AC

4-Dec-24

$560.00

$72.80

$632.80

4-Dec-24

180.00

$180.00

132

$180.00

4-Dec-24

$180.00

134

$180.00

4-Dec-24

$180.00

223

$180.00

3-Dec-24

$3162.99

$411.19

$3574.18

$135.60

221,150, 149 + 2 puppies

$3438.58

8778

9-Dec-24

$4343.00

Total

$8954.38

34I find that the Respondent has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the amount on the SOA for boarding reflects the actual costs and that these costs are reasonable because of errors, inconsistencies, and lack of clarity in invoice #8.

35For example, there is an error with one of the charges included in the SOA regarding Invoice #8. Invoice #8 shows charges that include the dates of December 1 – 3, 2024 at a rate of $40/day per dog. However, the SOA states that the Boarding Charges are for the period of November 26 – 30, 2024. Therefore, any charges after November 30, 2024 should not have been included in the calculation of the amounts contained in the SOA.

36It is also unclear which dogs Invoice #8 pertains to. It appears, based on the Respondents submissions, that this invoice is for dogs with ID #’s 221, 149, and 150 plus 2 puppies that were born while in AWS’s care. However, the Respondent’s submissions are not evidence and there are no clear identification as to the dogs ID #’s which AWS had assigned to each dog that was removed.

37There also are multiple inconsistencies with Invoice #8 including the date ranges and number of dogs being cared for varies in several different areas of this invoice. This invoice includes an ICU/Isolation fee charge of 6 days for 3 dogs in one row of the invoice and then the very next row shows an ICU/Isolation fee charge of 2 days for 4 dogs. Aside from the variation in the number of dogs subject to these charges, these ICU/Isolation fee charges are in addition to daily boarding charges being applied. There is no explanation provided by the Respondent on how a total boarding charge of $2,160.00 for 3 dogs over a six-day period which averages to $120.00/day/dog is reasonable.

38In the summary table for this invoice, it shows an excluded costs of $135.60 that is removed from the original total amount of $3,438.58. In the Respondent’s submissions, it states that this reduction is for the two puppies that were born while in AWS’s care. However, there is no explanation on how these excluded costs of $135.60 were calculated.

39This invoice also contains other charges should not be charged to the Appellant based on the Respondent’s claims in its submissions. For example, the Respondent acknowledges that microchipping charges are not necessary for relief of distress and is done for AWS’s benefit. However, a microchipping charge is contained in this invoice. There are also other charges that form part of this invoice that appear to be related to the two puppies born while in AWS’ care and as such should not be included in the SOA such as puppy pads, whelping assist and puppy recovery, and vet appointment travel and time.

40In any event, Inspector Haaima states in her Witness Statement that the 27 dogs were initially transported to the Hamilton Burlington SPCA for boarding as it was determined to be the only appropriate facility that could manage this large number of dogs. She further states that seven of the dogs were later transferred to another unidentified boarding facility as they no longer had medical needs or required additional monitoring. Inspector Haaima stated that the daily boarding costs charged by all these various facilities is consistent with average boarding fees and includes the provision of food, water, exercise, enrichment, and socialization.

41Inspector Haaima has provided uncontested evidence that the daily boarding rates of $40.00 - $45.00/day/dog charged by the various boarding facilities used by AWS in the keeping and care of these dogs is in line with average boarding fees.

42Due to the inconsistencies, lack of clarity, and calculation errors in Invoice #8, I find that the Respondent has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the amounts contained in this invoice were the actual costs incurred and that they are reasonable. As a result, I am varying the boarding charges in the SOA to $5,515.80 which is a reduction of $3,438.58 – which is the full amount of Invoice #8. I am satisfied that the Respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that the remainder of the costs as set out in Invoices #241130AC and #8778 are actual costs and reasonable based on Inspector Haaima’s evidence. As the Appellant has not provided any evidence to challenge this finding, I confirm the remainder of the SOA for boarding costs.

c) Appellant’s ability to pay

43For 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.

44The 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.

45The 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.

46I 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

47Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I vary the SOA and Order the following:

a. The veterinary care cost in the SOA be reduced from $31347.71 to zero;

b. The cost in the SOA be reduced from $8954.38 to $5515.80; and

c. The Appellant must pay $5515.80 to the Minister of Finance.

Released: May 15, 2025

Mark Sraga, Member