Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019,S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Brian Grier
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Order Made By: Rocco Iamello, Member Paul Stopciati, Member
For the Appellant: Alishia Lavallie, Paralegal Counsel
For the Respondent: Tracy Lapping Regional Supervisor, (AWS); Jeremiah Hebert, (AWS); Dr. Tracy Seabrook, Veterinarian Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: April 3 and 4, 2025
BACKGROUND
1Brian Grier (“Appellant”) appeals the following order and statement of account issued to him by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) in relation to his dogs, Zeus (male) and Una (female), both 4-year-old intact French Mastiffs:
A Notice of Removal (“NOR”) pursuant to section 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (“PAWS Act”) issued on February 21, 2025;
A Statement of Account (“SOA”) issued pursuant to section 35(3) of the PAWS Act, on February 25, 2025, in the amount of $1087.08. The SOA relates to costs to provide necessaries to Zeus and Una between February 21 and 23, 2025.
2The Appellant also filed an Application for Revocation of an Order or Return of an Animal(s) (“Application for Return”) pursuant to section 38 of the PAWS Act.
ISSUES
3The issues to be decided by the Board are:
a. Should the 2 dogs Una and Zeus, removed on February 21, 2025, be returned to the owner?
b. Should the statements of account related to the dogs be confirmed, revoked or varied?
c. Should the Application for Return be granted such that the dogs should be returned to the Appellant?
RESULT
4Pursuant to its powers in s. 38(9)3.1 of the (PAWS Act), the Board confirms the SOA and orders the Appellant to pay $917.58 to the Minister of Finance.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Notice of Removal
5On February 21, 2025, Una and Zeus (dogs) were removed by (AWS) Inspector Hebert due to noncompliance of the order issued January 7, 2025.
Analysis on Notice of Removal
6The Appellant did not agree that Una and Zeus were in poor body weight and stated that he did increase the dogs’ food and that the dogs improved in condition between Inspector Hebert’s initial inspection in December 2024 and the follow-up inspection in January 2025.
7The appellant stated that Unas eye was a chronic issue and was not neglected and he cleaned the area and did not notice any signs of distress.
8The Appellant testified that he tried to make a veterinary appointment for the dogs some time after the January 7th Order was issued and stated that Sudbury veterinary clinics are very busy and obtaining appointments could take months. Mr. Grier also stated that he had a cancellation appointment with Baxter Animal Hospital but did not remember the details. He was unable to acquire any veterinarian records or remember the last time the dogs had a veterinarian examination.
9Dr. Seabrook, the who examined both dogs stated that the dogs were seriously underweight at the time of their initial examination and she did not need to know the breed standard to confirm this. She testified that she was able to easily observe and feel their rib and hip bones standing out, with the backbone obvious, putting both dogs at low body condition score. Una had an entropion (lower right eyelid puckered inward), which was causing her significant discomfort with prominent tearing and squinting, but the cornea appeared undamaged. She stated that Una requires surgery.
10AWS Regional Supervisor Tracy Lapping was the decision maker that issued the Decision to Keep both dogs in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector. Regional Supervisor Lapping testified that when making this decision she determined that the dogs needed to be kept in care because both were receiving ongoing medical care to achieve healthy body weights. She stated that Mr. Grier was generally uncooperative with the Inspector, that over a month was spent working with him and despite this Mr. Grier had not even made a veterinary appointment.
11Regional Supervisor Lapping testified that Zeus was undergoing testing for food bloat and re-feeding program at the time of the Keep in Care decision on February 25, 2025, and she believed that based on Dr. Seabrook’s advice on April 4, 2025, Zeus continued to require care to relieve his distress. Similarly for Una, who needed eye surgery and was on a continued re-feeding program, Regional Supervisor Lapping stated that she believed that Una continued to require care to relieve her distress.
Statement of Account
12A statement of account was issued by AWS includes the January 7, 2025, order to have the dogs assessed by a veterinarian for the body condition of Una and the eye examination which resulted in medication. Zeus also required x-rays.
13Inspector Hebert stated that three days of boarding costs at $39/dog per day at a kennel facility for care of dogs is a normal rate.
14Mr. Grier took issue with the cost of two baths that were listed in the SOA totaling $169.00.
Analysis on Statement of Account
15We find that the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden and has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA in the amount of $917.58 reflects the actual costs of necessaries to alleviate distress in the animals and that these costs were reasonable.
16Since the parties agreed to the removal of the $169.00 cost of the baths, we reduced the SOA by that amount, and confirmed the remaining amounts of $653.16 for a veterinarian, $264.42 in boarding costs, totaling $917.58.
Application for Return
17Based on the evidence before us, we have denied the appeal to return the Animals to Mr. Grier.
18The Respondent took the proper steps in removing Una and Zeus to relieve distress and gave the Appellant ample time to bring the dogs to a veterinarian for observation and medical attention.
19Mr. Grier failed to provide any concrete evidence that he attempted to seek veterinarian assistance or follow up an any scheduled appointments, which le to the removal of the animals.
20The Appellant also mentioned that Una was being treated by a veterinarian in Sudbury but could not provide any information as to when and where the treatment took place. This leads us to conclude that:
(1) To date, Mr. Grier has not secured a veterinarian with any clinic in Sudbury. The dogs remain under the care of a veterinarian and needs ongoing care and attention to bring them back to normal health.
(2) If the dogs were to be returned, they would be placed back in a distressed environment.
ORDER
21Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act we vary the SOA dated February 25, 2025, to $917.58 to be paid to the Minister of Finance.
Released: May 29, 2025
Rocco Iamello, Member
Paul Stopciati, Member