Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: May 29, 2025

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

Between:

Chelsey Flanders and Parker (Lexa) Mogck Applicants

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member For the Applicants: Parker (Lexa) Mogck, Self-represented For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel Videoconference hearing: March 24, 25 and 26, 2025

BACKGROUND

1This hearing involves two Applications for Return of an Animal (Application), Board File No’s. 16727/ACRB and 16767/ACRB. Chelsey Flanders and Parker Mogck, known as Lexa, (Applicants) are the owners/custodians of 2 dogs and 15 cats (Animals).

2On December 17, 2024, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) issued an Order dated December 17, 2024, pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act).

3On February 12, 2025, AWS removed the Animals pursuant to s. 31(1) (c) of the PAWS Act, citing failure to comply with the December 17, 2024 Order.

4The Applicants did not appeal the removal but filed on February 12, 2025, an Application (First Application) under s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act for the 2 dogs and for 5 of the cats, on the basis that the conditions that caused the animals to be taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care (Respondent) had ceased to exist. This application was assigned Board File Number 16727/ACRB.

5On February 25, 2025, the Respondent issued a Decision to Keep in Care (DTK) with respect to all the animals that had been removed on February 12, 2025, pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act.

6After receiving the DTK, the Applicants filed on February 26, 2025, a second Application (Second Application) for 6 cats and 2 dogs. The Applicants are seeking to have the same five cats identified in the First Application returned in addition to a sixth cat named Rhaena along with the same two dogs, named Satine and Talon. This application was assigned Board File Number 16767/ACRB.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

7Does the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that the Animals may be placed in distress if they were returned to the Applicants?

RESULT

8Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Applicants have not satisfied me that the conditions that caused the Animals to be in distress have ceased to exist, and as a result, the requested animals shall not be returned to the Applicants.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

9At the beginning of the hearing the Applicant Parker Mogck advised that they preferred to be called Lexa informed both myself and the Respondent that Chelsey Flanders would not be present for the hearing due to her employment commitments. Chelsey Flanders appeared in the video conference and confirmed that Lexa would represent her during this hearing. The Respondent consented to this but objected to Lexa giving testimony on behalf of Chelsey Flanders and I instructed Lexa that she could not give any testimony on behalf of Chelsey Flanders in this matter.

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Application or for an Order – Board File No. 16727/ACRB

10On February 28, 2025, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking to have the Application for Return of the Animals dismissed on the basis that the Board lacks jurisdiction regarding the matter, or in the alternative the Respondent sought an Order striking portions of the Application and an Order precluding the Applicants from calling evidence, cross-examining, or making submissions regarding specific portions of the Application.

11The Applicant advised the Board and the Respondent that they had attempted to submit a Notice of Withdrawal regarding their Application for Return (ACRB File No. 16727) but that it may not have been received by the Board. The Applicant did verbally confirm that they wished to have their Application for Return that was submitted on February 12, 2025, withdrawn.

12The Respondent consented to the withdrawal of this Application. Given that this Application has been withdrawn, the Respondent’s motion is moot and, therefore, dismissed.

13Given the Appellants’ withdrawal of this appeal, Board File No. 16727 being an Application for Return of Animals dated February 12, 2025 is now closed.

Respondent’s Motion for Board Order for additional disclosure regarding Applicants’ intended witnesses – ACRB File No. 16767

14On March 14, 2025, the Respondent submitted a Notice of Motion seeking an Order from the Board directing the Applicant to provide sufficient details about the nature of their witnesses’ evidence.

15The Respondent claimed that the Applicants’ Book of Documents contained witness statements of 4 proposed witnesses. The Respondent stated that the witness statements were vague and lacking detail and as a result they sought additional information from the Applicants regarding the scope of these witnesses’ intended evidence. The Respondent further advised that they had emailed the Applicants seeking this additional information on three different occasions but had not received any response from the Applicants.

16During the hearing on this motion the Respondent confirmed that they have received some of the additional information being requested prior to today’s hearing and that there only remains one potential witness for the Applicants – Ms. Sandra Strong that they object to having testify due to lack of disclosure regarding this witness and their inability to properly prepare for cross-examination of this witness.

17The Applicant stated that their witness Ms. Sandra Strong has had multiple interactions with AWS including an Inspector directly involved in this matter.

18The Respondent argued that this fact further reinforces their Motion to have this witness not be allowed to give testimony related to her interactions with AWS as AWS has no records or awareness of any interactions with this individual and they are not able to properly prepare for cross-examination of this individual. The Respondent further argued that any potential testimony given by Ms. Strong regarding her interactions with AWS is not relevant to the subject of the Application for Return of the Animals.

19The Respondent’s Motion is granted. The Applicants have not provided the Respondents with the full disclosure regarding Ms. Strong’s potential testimony with respect to her interactions with AWS as per the Case Conference Report and Order. Accordingly, this witness if called by the Applicants cannot provide any testimony regarding her interactions with AWS or other such matters that is not the subject of or relevant to the material issue of this hearing regarding an Application for Return of Animals.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Should the Application for Return of the six cats and two dogs be granted?

20For the reasons that follow, I find that the Applicants have not demonstrated that the requested animals will not be placed in distress if their Application for Return is granted.

21Section 38(4) of the 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.

22Geddes 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.

23Section 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.

24Distress 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.

Respondent’s Decision to issue DTK

25AWS Regional Supervisor Brandon James (RS James) testified regarding the reasons for his issuance of the DTK. During his testimony RS James stated that at the time of the issuance of the DTK the Animals were undergoing medical treatment as directed by a veterinarian for internal and external parasites. Regional Supervisor James further stated that this treatment was necessary because the Applicants did not take the required actions as ordered by AWS in the December 17, 2024 order to address this parasitic infection.

26RS James testified that the Order was issued to the Applicants due to positive fecal test results for Giardia and Roundworm being found in fecal samples taken by an AWS veterinarian during an AWS inspection of the Applicants’ residence on December 12, 2024. RS James further testified that the Order directed the Applicants to take specific actions to eliminate the parasitic infections in the animals.

27These actions included:

1. Having all the animals examined by a veterinarian with special attention to eradication and control of internal parasites and provide AWS with the non-redacted veterinarian exam findings and recommended treatments. The compliance date for this action was December 30, 2024.
2. Clean, disinfect, and maintain the home to provide sanitary conditions and promote the eradication of parasites. The compliance date for this action was January 17, 2025.
3. Ensure litter boxes and surrounding areas are clean and maintained to prevent exposure of animals to urine and fecal matter. The compliance date for this action was January 17, 2025.

28RS James testified that despite AWS Senior Inspector Dougherty making repeated attempts to work with the Applicants regarding the Order issued on December 17, 2024, including extending deadlines, that the Applicants continued to not comply with the Order and failed to have all Animals examined by a veterinarian.

29RS James gave testimony that after removal off all the Animals from the Applicants’ residence additional testing was done and 11 of the 17 animals had either Giardia, Roundworm or flea infections.

30RS James also testified that this resulted in veterinarian directed medical treatments which were required to be undertaken to eradicate the parasitic infections. RS James testified that follow up fecal testing approximately one month after treatment was started was necessary to determine if additional treatment was required.

31The Applicant argued that the concern with the parasitic infection of the all the animals was flawed and based this argument on the fact that only two of the three fecal samples taken by AWS came back positive for parasitic infections. Notwithstanding this fact, the Applicant also stated that it was their belief that since the animals were treated by AWS for parasitic infections the Animals were no longer in distress.

32I find the Applicants’ argument flawed and not supported by any evidence. RS James uncontroverted testimony is that at the time he made the decision to keep the animals in the care of CAWI the animals were in distress due to them suffering from one or more internal and external parasitic infections which required ongoing veterinary supervised treatment to eradicate these infections.

Will the 6 cats and 2 dogs be placed in distress if returned to the Applicants?

33RS James further testified that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the Animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Applicants for several reasons. These reasons included:

1. the unsanitary conditions the Animals were found to be living it at the time of their removal;
2. the Applicants’ lack of awareness of animal care, history of non-compliance; and
3. the Applicants’ job security and their financial ability to care for 6 cats and 2 dogs.

Conditions at time of removal

34In the DTK RS James states that during inspections by AWS the Animals were found to be living in unsanitary conditions. These unsanitary conditions included litter boxes full of feces and urine and that the Applicants were not complying with the AWS order for enhanced cleaning and maintenance requirements which were necessary to assist with the control/eradication of parasites.

35RS James further testified that having exposed feces which all the animals could come into contact with is how parasitic infections can be easily spread amongst the animals and why it was important for a clean and sanitary environment be maintained. RS James also testified that AWS found that there were too many animals living in the apartment due to its size.

36The Applicant testified that they were cleaning the litter boxes 2 – 3 times per week and stated that they believed they were in compliance with this requirement of the Order.

37I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument that they were providing a clean and sanitary environment for the animals. The Respondent’s findings at the time of the inspection of the Applicants residence on February 12, 2025 where they found litter boxes full of feces and urine shows that the Applicants were not providing a clean and sanitary environment which RS James has testified is necessary to help control and eradicate parasites.

Applicants’ lack of awareness of animal care and history of non-compliance and with AWS

38RS James testified that he believes that the Applicants have an overall lack of knowledge and experience to look after and treat animals’ health issues. RS James testified that he made this determination based on:

1. The Applicants’ inability to see that there were clear signs of fleas present on some of the animals at the time of the initial inspection by AWS on December 12, 2024 and the subsequent inspection on February 12, 2025.
2. Previous testimony by the Applicants in other ACRB hearings regarding their belief that they have animal care knowledge and skills which was not supported in the findings of the Board in those matters.
3. The Applicants’ continued reliance on a non-medical treatment for fleas (Diatomaceous Earth) even after being informed on December 12, 2024 that many animals had active live fleas and it was clear on the follow up inspection on February 12, 2024 that the animals still had fleas and the use of this product was ineffective.
4. The Applicants not using any medically effective deworming treatments and instead relying on other non-medical products or supplements such as HomeoPet’s “Host No More” for which there is no supporting credible information that this product can be used to control/eliminate parasites.

39RS James also testified that he had a concern that the Applicants were prepared to medicate the Animals with a medication they intended to purchase from an online pharmacy which had not been prescribed by a veterinarian and without any veterinarian oversight.

40RS James testified that he was aware that the Applicant took the cat named Garden to see a veterinarian on December 21, 2024 and that the Applicant refused treatment for internal and external parasitic infections as recommended by the veterinarian. The Applicant’s testimony that they believed that Garden may have been suffering from a food allergy and were monitoring her to see if her condition worsened and that they would have gotten veterinarian treatment for Garden supports RS James’ position regarding the Applicants lack awareness of how to care and provide treatment for health issues in their animals.

41The Applicant testified that they believe they do have an awareness of animal care and that some of the issues raised by AWS such as parasitic infections were not obvious nor where their signs indicating parasitic infections. The Applicant offered no additional proof or evidence to support their claim of knowledge and awareness of animal care.

42I find that based on the Applicant’s own testimony and their reliance on non-medical homeopathic remedies for issues such as parasitic infections combined with their intention to purchase and treat the Animals with a medication without any veterinary oversight demonstrates the Applicants are lacking an awareness of proper animal care.

43The Applicants have stated that they try to comply with orders issued by AWS, but at times they find the required actions confusing. In this matter, the Applicants state that they were confused on what they needed to do regarding having the animals examined by a veterinarian.

44During cross-examination the Applicant acknowledged that the Order did clearly state the actions they were required to take and that they understood what the Order required them to do. However, the Applicant testified that they were confused due to a series of email exchanges between themselves and AWS regarding the actions they were required to take to be in compliance with the Order. The Applicant also argued that past involvement with AWS regarding a previous matter and Orders, contributed to their confusion on what was required of them by this Order. The Applicant also testified that they attempted to comply to the best of their abilities.

45RS James testified that there has been a history of non-compliance with AWS Orders and lack of cooperation with AWS since November 2023. RS James further testified that the Applicants’ argument that they made about being confused about what actions they were being directed to take with respect to the AWS Order instead of taking the action required in the Order is another example of the Applicants non-compliance with AWS Orders.

46RS James testified that Order was very clear, in that it required the Applicants to have all the Animals examined by a veterinarian and follow their recommendations to eradicate the parasitic infections in the Animals. RS James further testified that between December 17, 2024 to February 12, 2025 the Applicants failed to comply this requirement which was necessary to address the parasitic infections in the Animals.

47The Order issued by AWS clearly stated the specific actions the Applicants were required to take and in reviewing the email exchanges between the Applicants and AWS, the Applicants claiming to be confused on what the Order required them to do is not plausible.

48The email exchanges from the Applicants started with them raising issues on their ability to transport all the animals to the veterinarian for examination and then evolved into communications as to why the examinations were necessary or alternatives to the examinations. As the Applicants acknowledged in cross-examination the requirement for this veterinarian examination was clear.

49RS James also testified regarding his concerns on the Applicants’ financial ability to support the six cats and two dogs the Applicants are seeking to have returned. RS James testified of his awareness of outstanding debts the Applicants have to the Crown resulting from a previous Board decision regarding Statements of Account as well as rent owed to their former landlord because of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision. He further stated that the Applicants have provided no documentation to AWS to show the state of their finances including sources of monthly income.

Applicants’ current employment and living arrangements

50During the beginning of the hearing the Applicants advised me and the Respondents that they have very recently moved from Ontario and are currently residing in Saskatchewan where Ms. Flanders has just started a new job. The Respondent argued that this raises significant issues regarding the issue of the Applicant demonstrating that the living conditions for the animals they are seeking to have returned to them have improved and they are complying with the requirements of the PAWS Act and the associated standards of care.

51The Applicant testified that Chelsey Flanders had just started a new job in Saskatchewan and provided a letter of employment as part of their evidence. However, the letter was redacted and it did not show the name of the employer and it does not state if the employment is seasonal or permanent. The Applicant did not provide any direct testimony by Chelsey Flanders regarding the terms of employment that would support the Applicants’ argument that they have the financial ability to care for the animals they are seeking to have returned to them.

52The Applicant stated that they are currently living in a hotel that is provided by Ms. Flander’s employer and that due to the extensive travel requirements of Chelsey’s job they have not made any decisions regarding whether they will continue to live in employer provided hotels or motels or find an apartment to rent.

53Lexa also stated that she may obtain employment with the same employer as Chelsey and that if this occurs then they would possibly travel with the two dogs and six cats in the company provided truck and would leave the cats in the hotel/motel room while working throughout the day and that they would bring enough litter boxes and supplies for this. When questioned under cross-examination on this fact, Lexa stated that they have received approval from the company to transport these animals in the company supplied truck but provided no documentation or had anyone from the company testify to this fact.

54When questioned on the details of the type of work that this job involves the Applicant testified that the job is herbicide spraying, is outside work most of the day and is 6 days per week.

55The Applicant testified that if they do rent an apartment, that they do not know if Lexa would be travelling with Chelsey and if all the animals would travel with them or if they would leave the cats in the apartment with a pet sitter.

56The Applicant also testified when questioned about previous statements made to AWS concerning possible employment for Lexa in California and what the plans would be for the animals if returned and should Lexa accept employment in California. The Applicant testified that if this were to happen then the one dog – Talon would go to California with Lexa and the remaining dog and 6 cats would stay with Chelsey. Lexa further testified that they may then get a pet sitter to help Chelsey look after the animals while Chelsey worked.

57The Respondent has raised significant concerns regarding all the unknowns that this relocation by the Applicants from Ontario to Saskatchewan creates. The concerns included the fact that the Applicants have no definitive plans on how or where they would live, how they would care for the animals – would they travel with them or leave the cats with a pet sitter? If the animals did travel with the Applicants, how would they travel, would they be placed in appropriate carriers? I find that these concerns are warranted, when combined with the Applicants past history of non-compliance with AWS Orders, and the Applicants’ unknown financial situation and their ability to provide for the animals and any ongoing or future healthcare costs.

58The Respondent has argued that due to this sudden change in living arrangements by the Applicants, the Application for Return is premature and that the issues that lead to the DTK continue to exist and this Application should be denied.

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

59Based on all the reasons stated above, I find that the Applicant has not provided any persuasive evidence that demonstrates that the conditions stated in the DTK have ceased to exist.

60The onus is for the Applicant to prove that they have addressed the issues identified in the DTK and they have not. The Applicants have not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the animals will be living in a clean and sanitary environment, that they have the financial ability, awareness, and willingness to provide the necessary care for the animals.

61The Respondent has argued that the Applicants’ sudden move to Saskatchewan and there being no plans in terms of living arrangements, the possibility of extensive travelling with the six cats and two dogs and how they will be safely transported and cared for has not resolved the conditions cited in the DTK and these conditions are still valid.

62I agree with the Respondents argument, I find that that based on the Applicants own testimony regarding the uncertainty on how or where they will live and care for the animals along with the fact that the Applicants have not provided any substantiated evidence to demonstrate that the conditions identified in the DTK have been addressed, that the conditions cited in the DTK have ceased to exist.

63Therefore, for the reasons given above, and the lack of any persuasive submissions by the Applicant to support their Application for Return, I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the conditions that caused the Animals to be in distress have ceased to exist and that the requested two dogs and six cats should not be returned to them.

ORDER

64Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I deny the Application and decline to order the return of the requested animals.