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 in writing: March 17 and 18, 2025.
BACKGROUND
1Joshua LaPointe, the Appellant, is the owner of 33 Boston Terriers (Dogs) which he keeps at his residence in Kingston ON (Property).
2On November 26, 2024, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) and removed the Dogs from the Property 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 the custody of AWS.
3The Appellant appealed the NOR and the Animal Care Review Board (Board) released is decision 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.
4On December 23, 2024, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI), the Respondent, issued a Decision to Keep in care (DTK) for all 35 Dogs, including the 2 puppies that were born in care, pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
5On December 25, 2024, the Appellant appealed the DTK to the Board stating that he had corrected the conditions that led to their removal.
6A Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) dated January 23, 2025, was issued ordering this hearing to proceed to a written hearing.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
7The issues in dispute in this matter are:
a) Was it necessary for the Respondent to issue the DTK, to relieve their distress?
b) Are there reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs that were kept in care may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?
RESULT
8Based on the evidence before me, I find:
a) It was necessary to issue the DTK on December 23, 2024, to relieve the Dogs’ distress; and
b) The CAWI had reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Was it necessary to keep the Dogs in care to relieve their distress?
9For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to keep the Dogs in their care to relieve their distress. I made this determination after considering the circumstances causing the removal of the Dogs and the health of the Dogs.
10On December 23, 2024, Regional Supervisor Michael Lycett (Delegate Lycett), issued a DTK for the Dogs, stating it was necessary to keep them in the care of the Respondent to relieve them of distress, and that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
11Delegate Lycett testified that after having reviewed Inspector Haaima’s notes and medical reports he made this determination based on the following:
a) Appellant’s history of non-compliance with AWS Orders;
b) Residence was in a poor sanitary condition and the basic standards of care were not met;
c) A large number of dogs required continuing and follow up medical care;
d) A reasonable belief that the Appellant would be unwilling or unable to provide care, based on history of Appellant’s failing to follow veterinary recommendations, and failure to recognize the severity of the dogs’ conditions;
e) A reasonable belief that the Appellant would not improve the living conditions in the residence due to statements made by the Appellant to AWS Inspectors that nothing is wrong with these conditions;
f) Two puppies born in care need to remain with their mother.
12Section 31(6) of the PAWS Act permits the Respondent to decide to keep an animal that was removed under s. 31(1) in the Respondents care if:
a) the Respondent determines it is necessary to relieve the animal’s distress; or
b) the Respondent has reasonable grounds to believe that,
i. the animal may be placed in distress if returned to its owner or custodian; or
ii. the animal may be trained to fight another animal if returned to its owner or custodian.
13Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act 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.
14Further, Section 3 of the Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements Regulation, O.Reg.444/19 (Regulations), 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”.
Conditions at time of Removal
15The Respondent submitted affidavits from Inspector Haaima, Dr. Kyle Goldie and Dr. Stephanie Dam that provide evidence of the Dogs being in distress at the time of their removal by AWS.
16Inspector Haaima affirmed in her Witness Statement, which formed part of her affidavit, that the living area for the Dogs did not meet the standards of care. She stated that the area in which the Dogs were housed in the Appellant’s residence were unsanitary and hazardous, lacked appropriate bedding, had inappropriately sized and insufficiently maintained dog crates, and no access to potable water or food. She also stated that many of the Dogs had untreated medical conditions.
17Inspector Haaima provided evidence regarding the Appellants non-compliance with the Orders that she had previously issued directing him to have the Dogs examined and treated by a veterinarian along with rectifying the unacceptable living conditions.
18Inspector Haaima testified that she made the determination that the Dogs were in distress and needed to be removed to relieve their distress due to the Appellant’s non-compliance with the issued Orders and failing to provide the Dogs with the minimum standards of care.
19Dr. Goldie stated in his Witness Statement that he attended the Property on the day the Dogs were removed. He states that at the time of his attendance he observed many hazardous conditions in the Property including exposed electrical cords, protruding nails, broken furniture, risk of fall due to unprotected opening from the attic/loft area where the dogs were housed to the floor below, as well as the overall unsanitary conditions of the living area including accumulations of dirt, fecal matter and other debris, and there was an overpowering ammonia smell which he attributed to urine saturation on the flooring and dog bedding materials.
20Dr. Goldie further stated that many Dogs had cloudy corneas which he attributed to either chronic exposure to high ammonia levels or trauma. He stated that he observed AWS Inspector Eric Goettling perform an ammonia strip test which indicated an ammonia level of 50 ppm and that this high ammonia level was very irritating and was causing him to cough. He further stated that he witnessed many loose dogs that were fighting and dogs with apparent bite wounds.
The Dog’s Health Conditions
21Dr. Goldie stated that he performed triage examinations of the Dogs after removal and that he found many dogs requiring veterinary medical care as they had unaddressed medical issues. He also stated that in his expert opinion the Dogs were being housed in an unsanitary and hazardous environment and that removal of the Dogs and subsequent care provided to them while in AWS’ care relieved them of distress and prevented further suffering.
22Dr. Stephanie Dam, in her Witness Statement, provided a generalized summary of her findings from her examination of the 27 dogs that were transferred to the Hamilton Burlington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In this summary she stated it was her expert opinion:
a) Most of the dogs had some type of ocular issue due to poor hygiene, environmental issues and fighting and injuries.
b) There are genetic concerns due to inbreeding as well as 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.
c) Neglect in veterinary care being provided to properly treat eye injuries resulting in some of the dogs needed to have eyes removed to relieve their pain and suffering.
d) Most of the adult dogs had scarring and wounds over their head and limbs that were the result of repeated incidents of dog fighting due to having intact females and males in the same location.
e) The degree of scarring and damage to some of the eyes and ears was chronic and had occurred months prior.
f) 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.
g) General poor hygiene and low body condition scores – poor hair coats, 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, very long and untrimmed nails – overgrown with some so overgrown it impacted their ability to stand/walk.
23Dr. Dam stated that since removal, all the Dogs had shown improvement in terms of their health, including improvements of their medical conditions after treatment including surgical procedures to remove eyes from five of the dogs. Dr. Dam further 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.
24Delegate Lycett elaborated in his Witness Statement that after reviewing the medical reports and findings, it became clear that a majority of the Dogs required additional medications, follow up veterinary visits, monitoring and other medical treatment and that he has no confidence that the Appellant would provide any of this necessary care in the future.
25The Appellant stated in his submission that he cares very deeply for his Dogs and that he takes good care of them. He further stated that he takes all necessary steps to ensure their safety and well-being including up to date vaccinations and that the Dogs were in good health.
26I do not accept the Appellant’s claim of providing proper care for the Dogs or that he was able to ensure their health, safety, and well-being. The Appellant provided no evidence to corroborate his own assertions, such as from a veterinarian or other credible witnesses, nor has he provided any other form of documentary proof that the Dogs were receiving the necessary veterinary care and in good health.
27I find that the evidence from the Respondents witnesses, including two expert veterinarians, very persuasive and it supports Delegate Lycett’s determination that it was necessary to keep the Dogs in the care of CAWI to relieve them of their distress.
Are there reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs that were kept in care may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?
28For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs might be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant. I made this determination after considering the evidence with respect to the Appellant’s non-compliance with previous AWS orders and their inability to provide proper veterinary care for the Dogs.
Appellant’s non-compliance with orders and lack of veterinary care
29As indicated above, Delegate Lycett testified that he made his determination to issue the DTK based in part on the Appellant’s history of non-compliance with AWS Orders. These Orders required the Appellant to undertake numerous actions including having the Dogs examined by a veterinarian and providing the recommended treatment, providing a clean and sanitary environment, appropriately sized kennels that were in a state of good repair, providing adequate daily exercise and enrichment strategies and reducing the ammonia levels in the living area for the Dogs.
30Inspector Haaima stated in her Witness Statement that despite providing additional time for the Appellant to comply with the Orders she had issued, she conducted an inspection of the Property on November 5, 2024, and found that the Appellant failed to take the required actions resulting in the issuance of a Notice of Non-compliance Failure to Comply with Order(s) dated November 13, 2024.
31Inspector Haaima and Dr. Goldie’s testimony regarding their observations and findings from the November 26, 2024, inspection of the Property further confirmed the Appellant’s non-compliance with these two Orders, which ultimately led to the NOR being issued and the Dogs’ removal.
32Transcripts of Dr. Dam’s testimony during the hearing of the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR (ACRB File Number 16514) formed part of Dr. Dam’s affidavit. Dr. Dam elaborated in his statement that the ocular issues of the Dogs were chronic and that these problems didn’t just happen, but that they must have been occurring for weeks to months. Such eye problems would be obvious, and it was clear that appropriate veterinary care had not been provided to the Dogs.
33Dr. Dam’s expert opinion from her clinical examination of the 27 dogs that she performed also formed part of her affidavit. In her opinion, in addition to neglect in veterinary care being provided to properly treat the Dogs’ eye injuries, she also suspected neglect in caring for wounds on the Dogs due to the degree and frequency of scarring and damage to the dog’s eyes and ears. Dr. Dam further stated that in her opinion appropriate deworming of breeding Dogs and puppies had not been completed, and the overall physical condition of the Dogs demonstrated poor nutrition and neglect.
34Delegate Lycett states in the DTK that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the return of the Dogs might place them in distress based on the Appellant’s failure to recognize the severity of the Dogs conditions, as well as his refusal to follow veterinary recommendations and provide proper standards of care for the Dogs. Delegate Lycett further stated that he believes the Appellant is either unwilling and/or unable to provide the necessary care for the Dogs.
35The Appellant states in his submission that he has taken the necessary actions to be in full compliance with the Orders issued by AWS, including ensuring a clean, safe and sanitary living environment, a reduction in ammonia levels, appropriately sized and maintained kennels as well as ensuring the Dogs have adequate and age-appropriate daily exercise and enrichment exercises. Despite claiming he was in compliance, the Appellant provided no documentation to support his claims such as photos of the area where the animals were kept, the kennels for the Dogs, ventilation fans or independent testing results of ammonia levels.
36The Appellant also made other claims regarding veterinary care for the Dogs, including “that dogs had up to date vaccinations, as confirmed by a licensed veterinarian” and “The appellant has consistently demonstrated the ability to properly care for his dogs, as evidenced by veterinary records, home inspections, and the dogs’ health and well-being.” However, he provided no veterinary records or substantive evidence to support these claims.
CONCLUSION
37In summary, the 35 Dogs should not be returned to the Appellant. The Respondent has made very persuasive arguments supported by uncontested evidence that returning the Dogs to the Appellant would place them in distress.
38I find that the Appellants arguments to have his Dogs returned were unpersuasive and not credible due to the fact that he provided no corroborating evidence to support his claims of compliance with the Orders, providing adequate veterinary care for the Dogs, and meeting the standards of care with respect to the living environment at his Property.
ORDER
Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I dismiss the appeal of the DTK.
Released: May 16, 2025
_______________________
Mark Sraga, Member