Lesley Ralston v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 158

Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 06/26/2025

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

Between:

Lesley Ralston Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member For the Appellant: Lesley Ralston, Self-represented For the Respondent: Alice Liu, Counsel Videoconference Hearing: May 8, 2025

BACKGROUND

1The matter involves a Statement of Account dated March 26, 2025, in the amount of $38,779.58 issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) to Lesley Ralston (Appellant). The Appellant resides in York, Ontario and is the owner of 22 dogs – 18 bulldogs and 4 cocker spaniels (Dogs).

2On March 4, 2025, AWS issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) and removed the Dogs from the Appellant’s residence. AWS undertook this action due to non-compliance with an order pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act).

3On March 6, 2025, the Appellant appealed the NOR to the Animal Care Review Board (Board). The appeal of the NOR is not the subject of this proceeding.

4On March 11, 2025, AWS issued a Notice of Decision to Keep Animal(s) (DTK) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s (CAWI) care to the Appellant pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act. The Appellant appealed the DTK to the Board on the same day. The appeal of the DTK is not the subject of this proceeding.

5On March 26, 2025, AWS issued a statement of account in the amount of $38,799.58 to the Appellant for costs related to veterinary care, boarding and transportation of the Dogs (SOA). The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Board on the same day.

6The Appellant seeks to have the SOA varied as they believe some of the charges are excessive and unreasonable. The Appellant’s position is these costs are not reasonable and are excessive. The Appellant also stated she is seeking to have the costs reduced due to her inability to pay.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

7Should the SOA, dated March 26, 2025, in the amount of $38,779.58, be revoked, confirmed, or varied?

RESULT

8Based on the findings below, I find:

a. The boarding costs in the SOA in the amount of $27,830.00 are reasonable and are therefore confirmed; and

b. the veterinary costs and transportation costs in the SOA are unreasonable in part, and they are therefore varied as follows:

i. Veterinary costs are varied from $10,057.88 to $9,060.20; and

ii. Transportation costs are varied from $891.70 to $731.70; and

The Appellant has failed to provide that they are facing financial hardships or are unable to pay the SOA.

Reasons for the Dogs’ removal and the decision to keep them in care

9AWS Inspector Shay DeWolfe testified on behalf of the Respondent. The Inspector recounted the events that led to AWS’s involvement and why the Dogs were removed as well as the need for veterinary care and boarding of the Dogs.

10Inspector DeWolfe testified that in response to a complaint received by AWS, she along with Senior Inspector Jacqueline Winter, conducted an inspection of the Appellant’s residence on February 4, 2025. Inspector DeWolfe further testified that during this inspection she observed that the Dogs were not provided with appropriately sized crates, did not have access to water, there was urine and feces in the kennels and that the dogs had visible signs of urine staining on their bodies.

11As a result of the inspection, Inspector DeWolfe issued an order dated February 4, 2025, to the Appellant requiring her to provide appropriately sized kennels, continual access to water, a clean and sanitary living environment, and 60 minutes of continuous relief from being in a crate.

12Inspector DeWolfe testified that follow-up inspections were conducted to see if there was compliance with the issued order and that the Inspectors findings resulted in the issuance of a second order directing the Appellant to have 5 dogs examined by a veterinarian due to concerns with these dogs.

13Inspector DeWolfe testified that on March 4, 2025, a reinspection was conducted, and she found that the standards of care had worsened along with non-compliance with the orders and that this resulted in the decision to remove the Dogs.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

The Statement of Account

14The SOA pertains to costs incurred by the Respondent for the transportation, boarding and veterinary care provided to the Appellant’s Dogs that were removed from her residence on March 4, 2025, and which were subsequently kept in the care of the Respondent.

15The total amount of the SOA in dispute was for $38,779.58 and is comprised of the following costs:

a. Veterinary Costs: $10,057.88

b. Transportation Costs: $891.70

c. Boarding Costs: March 5 – 26, 2025 - $27,830.00

16The Appellant’s position is these costs are not reasonable and are excessive. The Appellant also stated she is seeking to have the costs reduced due to her inability to pay.

17Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act states that the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may, from time to time, serve on the owner of an animal a statement of account, making the 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, which may include providing it with necessaries;

(b) An inspector has removed the animal under section 31(1) or (2); and/or

(c) The Respondent has kept the animal in its care under s. 31(6) or taken the animal into care under s. 44(8).

18Section 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 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

(c) Abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation, or neglect.

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 its 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, I find:

d. A portion of the veterinary costs were unreasonable, and are therefore varied from $10,057.88 to $9,060.20.

e. A portion of the transportation costs were unreasonable, and are therefore varied from $891.70 to $731.70; and

f. Boarding costs in the amount of $27,830.00 are reasonable, and are therefore confirmed.

Veterinary Costs

22I vary the veterinary costs in the SOA from $10,057.88 to $9,060.20 for the following reasons.

23Inspector DeWolfe testified that veterinary costs listed in the SOA for $10,057.88 was for examinations, medications, tests, vaccines and treatments, and that all of the veterinary costs were necessary to relieve the Dogs of distress.

24Inspector DeWolfe testified that in anticipation of the removal of the Dogs and due to the conditions that she observed the dogs to be in prior to removal that AWS had arranged for a veterinarian – Dr. Ravi Ramcharitar D.V.M. of Palumbo Mobile Vet Services to be at the boarding facility to examine the Dogs upon their arrival and provide any necessary veterinary treatments.

25Inspector DeWolfe also testified that Dr. Ramcharitar also administer the necessary vaccinations to the dogs as per protocol when placing dogs with unknown vaccination status in a boarding facility to ensure all animals in the boarding facility are safe.

26Inspector DeWolfe further testified that it was more cost effective and efficient to have a veterinarian be at the boarding facility to examine the Dogs and provide any necessary medical treatment and vaccinations there instead of having the Dogs transported to a veterinary clinic for examination and treatment.

27Dr. Ramcharitar testified that he conducted examinations of the Dogs, and that the majority of the Dogs’ examinations were largely unremarkable with only 2 of the 22 dogs requiring veterinary treatment for ocular issues which were resolved after treatment with medicated eye drops.

28Inspector DeWolfe testified that on March 12, 2025, Dr. Ramcharitar notified her via email that a dog named Shemar had developed a penial condition in which the dog’s penis would not retract and required urgent medical treatment. Inspector DeWolfe further testified that she directed Dr. Ramcharitar to proceed with providing treatment for this condition.

29Dr. Ramcharitar testified that he did not observe this penial condition at the time of his initial examination of Shemar on March 4, 2025, and it may have developed following his removal from the Appellant’s care. Dr. Ramcharitar further testified that this condition was the result of debris becoming entrapped around the penis preventing retraction of the penis and urgent medical treatment was required to alleviate this painful condition and prevent irreversible damage to the penis.

30Dr. Ramcharitar also testified that many of the dogs had active diarrhea and that fecal testing was conducted on all the Dogs to determine if the diarrhea was due to parasitic infections. Dr. Ramcharitar testified that the test results came back positive for Giardia and Roundworm in all the Dogs and that a five-day treatment regimen of Fenbendazole and Metronidazole was given to the Dogs. Dr. Ramcharitar further testified that retesting was carried out 14 days later using a bulk sampling protocol to minimize costs and that the treatments had been effective.

31Dr. Ramcharitar testified that all the veterinary charges contained in the invoices provided to AWS were in range of the recommended fees found in the 2024 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) Fee Guideline (Guideline) and that some of the fees charged were less than those in the Guideline.

32The Appellant argued that the veterinary fees charged to AWS by the treating veterinary clinic were higher than the fees charged by her own veterinarian. However, since the Appellant provided no evidence to support this argument and based on Dr. Ramcharitar’s uncontroverted testimony that the fee’s charged by the veterinary clinic were in range and in some case lower than the recommended fee’s in the Guideline, I find the Appellant’s argument non-persuasive.

33Based on Dr. Ramcharitar’s testimony regarding the veterinary services provided and fees charged to AWS, I find that all the veterinary services provided except for the treatment and costs associated with the dog named Shemar were necessary and the costs reasonable.

34However, based on Dr. Ramcharitar’s testimony that the penial condition for Shemar was not observed at the time of his initial examination on March 4, 2025, and was not identified until March 12, 2025, I find that on the balance of probabilities this medical condition was not present at the time of Shemar’s removal and that the veterinary costs associated with the treatment of this condition should not be charged to the Appellant. I find it unreasonable for the AWS to charge the appellant for a condition that was not present at the time the dog was in the appellant’s care.

35Accordingly, I am varying the veterinary costs by reducing the veterinary costs contained in the SOA by $997.68 – these are the veterinary costs charged to AWS for the treatment of Shemar’s penial condition as contained in invoice number 19247 from Palumbo Mobile Veterinary Services.

Transportation Costs

36For the reasons that follow, I vary the transportation costs contained in the SOA from $891.70 to $731.70.

37Inspector DeWolfe testified that the transportation costs contained in the SOA are comprised of charges from two different service providers. One charge is from the Fort Erie SPCA in the amount of $731.70 and the other charge is from the boarding facility in the amount of $160.00.

38Inspector DeWolfe testified that if there are only a small number of dogs to be transported due to a removal then AWS will use their own Inspector vehicles. However, when there are a large number of dogs to be transported as in this situation then AWS will contract an external service provider to handle the transportation of the dogs.

39Inspector DeWolfe further testified that having all the Dogs transported in a single vehicle is more efficient and less stressful for dogs when they are used to being housed together. Inspector DeWolfe also testified that it is better from a biosafety perspective as only one vehicle needs to be cleaned after the transportation of the animals.

40Inspector DeWolfe testified that for this situation AWS had retained the services of the Fort Erie SPCA to facilitate the transportation of the Dogs from the Appellant’s residence to the boarding facility where the Dogs would be kept.

41With respect to the $160.00 transportation charge by the boarding facility, Inspector DeWolfe testified that this charge was for the boarding facility transporting the dog named Shemar to a veterinary clinic for necessary medical treatment, specifically the medical treatment related to the penial condition.

42I accept Inspector DeWolfe’s explanation that transporting all the dogs together in a single vehicle and why AWS used the Fort Erie SPCA in this case. I find this to be a reasonable cost in the circumstances. The Appellant has not provided any evidence that the transportation costs were excessive and unreasonable. However, as per my findings in [34] above, I find that the costs related to the transportation of the dog Shemar for veterinary treatment should not be charged to the Appellant, and it was unreasonable to do so, and as a result I vary the transportation costs from $891.70 to $731.70.

43This reduction in transportation costs is based on the transportation costs charge of $160.00 by the boarding facility and contained in invoice #255 for the transportation of Shemar to and from the veterinarian.

Boarding Costs

45For the reasons that follow, I confirm the boarding cost charges contained in the SOA in the amount of $27,830.00, as I find they were necessary and reasonable.

46Inspector DeWolfe testified that the boarding facility used to house the Dogs has been approved by AWS and previously used by AWS.

47Inspector DeWolfe further testified that this boarding facility keeps dogs housed for AWS from viewing by members of the public, the dogs would not be intermingled with other dogs being boarded at the facility and the location of the facility in proximity to the Inspector’s work location were also deciding factors on why this boarding facility was chosen to house the Dogs.

48Inspector DeWolfe testified that the daily boarding rate charged of $55.00 per day per dog was reasonable and consistent with average boarding fees charged by boarding facilities in the area.

49Inspector DeWolfe also testified that the boarding facility provided all the necessities that the Dogs required including food, water, shelter, and the administration of medications as prescribed by the veterinarian Dr. Ramcharitar.

50The Appellant did not provide any documentary evidence or compelling testimony to support their position that the boarding rates charged were excessive or unreasonable. I accept Inspector DeWolfe’s testimony that the boarding rate was reasonable and consistent with average boarding fees, and that the boarding facility was a reasonable choice for the reasons outlined by Inspector DeWolfe. As a result, I find that the amount of the boarding costs charged were necessary and reasonable.

b) Appellant’s ability to pay

51For the reasons that follow, I find that the Appellant has failed to prove that they are facing financial hardships or are unable to pay the SOA.

52The Appellant has testified that they are on a fixed income and facing financial hardships including outstanding credit card debts because of charging the costs of caring for the Dogs to these credit cards and that these facts should be considered in determining the SOA and amounts owed. However, the Appellant has provided no evidence such as credit card statements, bank statements or proof of monthly income versus monthly expenses to substantiate this claim and as such I find this testimony non-persuasive.

53The Appellant testified that as a breeder they relied on the sale of the Dogs as a source of income which would offset their expenses, but with the removal of the Dogs they no longer have this source of income.

54The Respondent argued that the Appellant no longer has the on-going costs of caring for the Dogs and that their monthly expenses have now been significantly reduced.

55The Respondent has argued that the Appellant’s claim of financial hardship and limited income should not be considered by the Board due to a lack of evidence to support this claim and that the intent of the PAWS Act is not to be punitive but to hold pet owners accountable for costs incurred when CAWI provides necessities for their animals.

56I find that 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

57Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I confirm the boarding costs contained in the SOA and vary the veterinary and transportation costs found in the SOA and Order the following:

a. The veterinary care costs in the SOA be reduced from $10,057.88 to $9,060.20;

b. The transportation cost in the SOA be reduced from $891.70 to $731.70;

c. The boarding cost in the SOA in the amount of $27,830.00 be confirmed; and

d. As a result, the Appellant must pay the entire varied amount of the SOA of $37,621.90 to the Minister of Finance.