Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Vicki Taylor
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair
Appearances
For the Appellant: Cassia Gomes, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: April 7, 2025
BACKGROUND
1This matter involves an appeal of an order dated December 18, 2024 (Order), issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) to the Appellant, Vicki Taylor, in relation to 15 horses she kept at her property in Campbellcroft, Ontario (Property).
2The Order was issued under s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act) and required the following action to be taken by the Appellant to relieve distress to the animals:
a. Containment of the horses within properly constructed and maintained fenced areas;
b. Provision of adequate shelter to protect the horses from the elements;
c. Adequate provision of recommended diet;
d. Continuous access to safe, palatable, clean, unfrozen water; and
e. Access to salt in the ration or free access.
3On December 26, 2024, the Appellant appealed the Order to the Animal Care Review Board (Board).
4On April 7, 2025, the parties participated in a videoconference hearing of the appeal and written closing submissions were submitted by both parties on April 17, 2025.
ISSUES
5Should the Order dated December 18, 2024 be confirmed, revoked or modified?
RESULT
6For the reasons that follow:
a. I find that the horses were not in distress on the date the Order was issued; and
b. The Order is revoked.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
7The PAWS Act provides an inspector with the authority to issue an order when an animal is believed to be in distress.
8Section 1 of the PAWS Act defines distress 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.
9Animals owners are required to comply with the minimum standards of care prescribed in the PAWS Act and the Regulation O.Reg. 444/19 s. 3 (Regulation). If they do not comply with the minimum standards of care, the animals are by definition “in distress.”1
10“Proper care,” lack of which can lead to distress, includes care in compliance with the minimum standards prescribed in the Regulation, including adequate and appropriate food and water, appropriate medical care, care for its general welfare, a proper resting and sleeping area, sanitary conditions, protection from the elements, and adequate space, light and ventilation.2
11As it relates to horses, who are considered “captive wildlife,” the standard of care in the Regulations also requires that they be provided with appropriate care. Their enclosures must be of an adequate size to facilitate and stimulate natural movement, but also shelter them from the elements.3
12Section 30(1) of the PAWS Act states that an AWS inspector who has reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is in distress may order the owner or custodian to take certain actions that may be necessary to relieve the animal of its distress, including having the animal examined and treated by a veterinarian.
13Pursuant to section 38(1) of the PAWS Act, owners of animals can appeal an order from an animal welfare inspector to the Board, and according to section 38(9), the Board has the power to confirm, revoke or modify an order made under section 30. The Respondent provided evidence based on the testimony and observations of Inspector Samantha Delahaye, who was the lead inspector on the file and decided to issue the Order.
14Inspector Delahaye testified that when she first attended the Property on December 10, 2024, it was very foggy and visibility was low, so she posted a notice on the Appellant’s mailbox and decided to reattend another day.
15Inspector Delahaye said that when she returned to the Property on December 13, 2024, a neighbor of the Appellant approached her stating that two horses had been out on the road recently and several had been hit by vehicles over the years. Inspector Delahaye also testified that she saw a loose horse on the driveway, not confined, that day when she attended.
16Inspector Delahaye stated that she then returned to her vehicle and drove further towards the Property where she encountered the Appellant Ms. Taylor, who was headed the opposite way up the driveway in her truck. Inspector Delahaye said she questioned the Appellant about the availability of food and water for her horses, and the Appellant informed her she had not had time to go out to feed them yet. Ms. Taylor showed the inspector the hay bales on the trailer and informed her that for providing water to the horses, she would use the hose or troughs, where she would hand-pail water if the hose was frozen.
17Inspector Delahaye testified that one horse had poor body condition. She said the Appellant informed her that this horse was very old and had issues with its teeth. The Appellant provided contact information for the veterinarian from Peterborough Veterinary Services, who had examined the horse in June 2024 to complete a dental float and consented to the inspector reaching out to them. Inspector Delahaye also noted concerns about a lack of shelter for the horses as well as poorly maintained fencing, but she did not walkaround the Property to examine this in more detail.
18The inspector requested a follow-up inspection, but Ms. Taylor had advised her that she had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy on the requested date so no appointment was booked.
19On December 16, 2024, Inspector Delahaye said that she called Peterborough Veterinary Services to inquire about the horse with a low body score, and the veterinarian confirmed that a dental float had been completed in June of that year. The veterinarian also informed her there were no major concerns with this horse.
20On December 18, 2024, having not heard from the Appellant and due to ongoing concerns about horses being loose on the property from the complainant, Inspector Delahaye testified that she served the Order by Purolator on Ms. Taylor at her Property to ensure her concerns were addressed. However, no evidence was provided that the Respondent booked a follow up inspection at the Property to walk around the Property and examine the horses that the Order was issued for.
21The Appellant testified about her experience training and raising horses for around 50 years. The Appellant disagreed that her horses were in distress or that the Order was necessary.
22Ms. Taylor disputed that the Property was hazardous to the horses or that it lacked food, water, salt, and other essentials for care. Ms. Taylor’s testimony was consistent with that of Inspector Delahaye in that she confirmed that on December 13, 2024, she had not yet had time to go out and feed the horses. However, Ms. Taylor confirmed that she had pointed out the hay bales and water troughs to the inspector, who at no time asked to examine them in more detail.
23The Appellant stated that due to her previous work in correctional services, which had varying shifts, every day would differ. This was especially true given her recent diagnosis with cancer, as chemotherapy treatments would lead to differing energy levels, and she would feed the horses at different times of the day.
24Ms. Taylor testified about her daily routine with the horses, which she stated were agricultural animals and lived outside year-round, with the thinner horses being stalled. She further explained that during the winter months, she would fill the water troughs at least twice daily to prevent ice buildup, and during the summer there was a stream running through the Property that the horses could freely access anytime. Ms. Taylor explained that she would feed the horses with bales of hay, which she would take out with the trailer when the feeding containers were finished. During the summer, the horses would predominantly feed on grass, but they also had access to the hay bales if needed.
25Ms. Taylor testified that none of her horses had respiratory illnesses, and only three had suffered from colic out of hundreds of horses she had cared for on the Property over the years, which shows she was well versed in caring for the animals. She also stated that she would take them to Peterborough Veterinary Clinic as required.
26The Appellant testified in detail about her medical diagnosis and how it impacted her routine. She stated that the horses were the only reason she got up in the morning, and caring for them was like animal therapy for her. She stated that the cancer did not change her routine much, but they would be fed in the morning sometime between 9 and 11 a.m., and there was no fixed schedule.
27The Appellant testified that the Property was expansive at over 500 acres, and the driveway was very long, so she was surprised to see the inspector’s vehicle as she was backing out that day. During her testimony, the inspector stated that the Appellant was combative during their interaction. Still, no details were provided on what she meant by “combative,” and Ms. Taylor explained that because she was going through chemotherapy she had to mask up and keep a distance due to the inherent risks. She also stated her voice was often affected by chemo, so it may sound raspy or like she was yelling, but this was not to be combative. She testified that at no time did Inspector Delahaye request to walk the Property or look in the food containers or water troughs. On the date proposed for inspection, the Appellant said she had a chemotherapy appointment, but the inspector did not offer any alternative available dates for inspection or reach out to reschedule.
28I was persuaded by Ms. Taylor’s testimony as there was no specific evidence put forward by the Respondent of combativeness, and this is not a reason to issue an Order. Without walking the Property or doing a thorough inspection, I am not convinced that Inspector Delahaye had sufficient basis for issuing the Order.
29Of note, Inspector Delahaye herself testified that the Appellant pointed her to where the food was kept, and she confirmed seeing the bales. The inspector also confirmed in her will say statement that she saw several round bales on the trailer, which confirms the Appellant’s routine of driving additional bales out as needed because, as she explained, the bales were very heavy, at around 1000 pounds or so. Ms. Taylor’s testimony was further supported by pictures showing the horses feeding from containers and drinking water from the troughs. Whether the water was readily available or frozen would have required a more in-depth inspection.
30Ms. Taylor entered into evidence photographs of her expansive Property, which showed that the driveway was very long, and you could not see all the paddocks from any one place. It also showed various structures on site, both man-made and natural, several outdoor buildings and garages, and expansive forest that could also act as a wind barrier to protect the horses from the elements. The photographs showed her horses to be in good health overall, competing in events, and eating and drinking from the bales and water troughs. There was no photographic evidence admitted by the Respondent to the contrary.
31Furthermore, I find that the Appellant providing information about the veterinarian clinic that regularly cared for her horses and consenting to Inspector Delahaye contacting the clinic showed that she was trying to cooperate. Peterborough Veterinary Services confirmed that the horse with a low body condition score was geriatric and had been examined in June 2024. The veterinarian had no ongoing concerns, which was consistent with what the Appellant had told the inspector, which supported the reliability of her evidence.
32The Appellant also included in her evidence a note from the horses’ primary veterinarian at Peterborough Veterinary Services, Dr. Aitken, which supported her position regarding the horses' overall well-being and confirmed they were not in distress. Dr. Aitken confirmed that upon attending the Property in January 2025, he saw ample hay, water in troughs, and the horses had no visible signs of injury or illness. While this letter post-dates the Order in question, the Respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter this, including photographs or proof of an on-site inspection.
33Dr. Aitken stated in his letter that he had no immediate concerns about the older horse with a low body condition score, but that it should be moved to the west paddock to have access to the run-in shelter, go to the barn overnight on extremely cold nights, and also wear a blanket during unusually cold spells. This confirms that there was shelter available on site if the horses needed it, and it also corroborates the Appellant’s testimony that the horses were use to living outdoors and generally in good health.
34In terms of Inspector Delahaye’s concerns about fencing, on the day of the visit on December 13, 2025, there was a loose foal on the driveway. The inspector also noted in her will say statement that while she was on site, the foal returned to the main paddock. In response to this, the Appellant testified that the foal would never go onto the street as it would not venture far from its mother. The Appellant testified that the bottom strand of the fence had slipped, but it was put back into place immediately after. She testified that fences required continual maintenance, which she does herself. On occasion, she hires a contractor for repairs. There were no concerns about fencing noted in the letter from Dr. Aitken, and the inspector failed to do a proper inspection or walk around the expansive Property sufficient to justify the issuance of an order for violations related to same.
35The Appellant did not deny that horses had gotten out before. She testified about one time this had happened, noting that they were under another person’s care, which was no longer happening. She also testified about a time in 2018 when someone in the area was turning horses loose. Mr. Taylor testified that a previous Order issued by Inspector Pratt in 2018 had been revoked on this basis.
36Based on the testimony and evidence of the Appellant, it does not appear that the inspector reached out to the Appellant after the December 13th visit to arrange a mutually agreeable time for an inspection. Inspector Delahaye stated specifically in her will say statement that, having not heard from Ms. Taylor, she proceeded to serve the Order, which I find premature given that she did not conduct a proper inspection or have an opportunity to assess most of the horses in question. As well, Inspector Delahaye failed to consider the difficult circumstances Ms. Taylor was facing due to her recent cancer diagnosis.
37It seems based on the testimony of both witnesses that the initial meeting was tense, not necessarily combative, but I accept the Appellant’s explanation that she had to be cautious due to ongoing chemotherapy treatments. Furthermore, hostility is not a reason for issuing an order; the question is whether the animals in question were in distress, and this was not adequately investigated based on the short visit that took place on December 13, 2025. During this visit, I find that the Appellant was generally cooperative as she showed the inspector where the food and water for the horses was kept, answered her questions, and consented to the inspector contacting Peterborough Veterinary Services regarding her concerns about the horse with a poor body condition score.
38Of particular importance, Inspector Delahaye testified that she could not see the entire property or all the horses from where she was. She only saw a few horses, one having poor body condition, and the Appellant was quite forthcoming with information about this horse. There was no evidence that the inspector asked to examine the troughs or containers further; she testified that she did not see a salt lick in the paddock but also stated she did not recall whether she asked the Appellant if the horses had access to salt. In fact, during cross-examination, Inspector Delahaye stated that she could not see past the fence line at all, so other than the foal and one horse with a low body condition score, the inspector did not see any of the other animals.
39Based on the materials filed by the Appellant, including the letter from Dr. Aitken and photographic evidence of the horses and Property, I find that the horses’ conditions did not meet the definition of distress as set out in the PAWS Act. I accept the Appellant’s testimony that there was food available and that she had a routine in place for putting out additional bales of hay and filling the water troughs by hose or hand bailing buckets if the hose was frozen during the winter, which was consistent with what she told the Inspector during their short discussion on December 13, 2024. As well, according to the Appellant’s testimony, the Property was vast and while most of the horses lived outside, there were options for shelter and several buildings the horses could go close to or inside for wind protection. Inspector Delahaye’s responses in cross-examination showed that she was not aware of all the areas on the Property the horses had access to, nor did she see most of the horses for which she issued the order as she only drove partway up the driveway, spoke to the Appellant briefly, and then left before serving the Order five days later by Purolator.
40I accept the Appellant’s testimony that she would feed the horses at various times throughout the day. It was clear from her evidence that she had additional sources of hay ready to reload and that she would often fix the fences to prevent any horses from getting out. The pictures clearly showed a vast Property with various areas for shelter, including constructed shelters and expansive natural forestry all around. I find the Appellant’s evidence was credible regarding having a plan in place for the winter, and based on her testimony she had a great deal of experience caring for her horses and rehabilitating animals.
41Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide specific evidence of any particular horse being unable to find shelter on the Property, either constructed or natural. The testimony of Inspector Delahaye that food, water, salt, shelter, and fencing were all lacking was highly speculative, especially considering her evidence that she did not see any of the horses past the driveway area. Based on her lack of direct observation, it is unclear how she could have assessed distress without a proper inspection, and her testimony that the Appellant denied her access does not consider the serious medical situation that the Appellant was facing.
42I was persuaded by the Appellant’s evidence that there was food, water, salt, and shelter for the horses on the Property, and the fences were generally in good repair, and therefore the horses were not in distress on the date the Order was issued. The Order applied to 15 horses when the inspector observed only two horses, at most, one being a baby foal and one that had a low body condition score but was under the care of a veterinarian who had no immediate concerns. During the principal on-site visit, Inspector Delahaye stated that she had the initial encounter with the neighbour and then spoke to the Appellant for around 10-15 minutes, with no further inspection or walk around the Property. I find that this was not a sufficient basis for finding distress and issuing the Order.
43In conclusion, I find that there was insufficient evidence of distress on the date the Order was made and the Order is revoked.
ORDER
44Pursuant to s. 38(9)1 of the PAWS Act, the Board revokes the Order of December 18, 2024 issued under s. 30 of the PAWS Act.
Released: June 9, 2025
Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair
Footnotes
- Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632 (Div Ct), para 52.
- O.Reg. 444/19 s. 3.
- O. Reg. 444/19 s. 5 and 6.