Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Parker (Lexa) Mogck and Chelsey Flanders Appellants
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair
Appearances
For the Appellants: Lexa Mogck, the appellant
For the Respondent: Carly Atrooshi, Regional Supervisor and Brandon James, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services; Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: May 20, 2025
OVERVIEW
1The Appellants, Lexa Mogck and Chelsey Flanders, are the owners of fifteen cats and two dogs named Talon and Satine (collectively referred to as the “Animals”) who were removed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) from the Appellants’ residence on February 12, 2025 for failure to comply with two Orders. Neither the Orders nor the removal are under appeal.
2On March 18, 2025, the Appellants were served with a Statement of Account (SOA) under s. 35 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), respecting costs incurred in relation to the Animals. The SOA was for a total amount of $13,550.80, which included boarding costs of $7,927.73 and veterinary costs of $5,623.07.
3On March 30, 2025, the Appellants appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board).
4On May 20, 2025, the parties participated in a videoconference hearing of the appeal.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
5Should the Statement of Account dated March 18, 2025 in the amount of $13,550.80 be confirmed, revoked, or varied?
RESULT
6Pursuant to its powers under s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, the Board varies the SOA and orders the Appellants to pay $13,451.36 to the Minister of Finance.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Did the charges on the SOA reflect the actual costs of necessaries provided, and were they reasonable?
7Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act states that the Respondent, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI), may serve an animal owner or custodian with a SOA respecting costs incurred to relieve distress and provide necessaries.
8Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act provides a list of costs that may be recovered including costs incurred in relation to relieving an animal’s distress, an animal which has been removed pursuant to subsection 31(1) or (2), or an animal kept in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care pursuant to subsection 31(6).
9The Respondent has the initial evidentiary burden to show that the SOA reflects costs incurred in relation to the circumstances prescribed under subsection 35(1), and that these costs are reasonable.
10The Respondent called evidence from two witnesses: Inspector Alyssa Dougherty, who was the lead AWS inspector dealing with the Animals, and qualified expert veterinarian Dr. Kyle Goldie.
11Inspector Dougherty provided testimony regarding the basis for removal and costs incurred under the SOA to relieve distress. She testified that on December 12, 2024, AWS executed a warrant to enter the Appellants’ property in response to a complaint. Three officers from the Windsor Police Service (WPS) attended, along with AWS Inspectors Dougherty and Howell, and AWS veterinarian Kyle Goldie.
12Inspector Dougherty noted that upon entry, they observed unsanitary living conditions for the Animals and had concerns regarding parasites and lack of water for the dogs. Based on the advice of Dr. Goldie, AWS issued an Order regarding the cat “Garden”, requiring her to be examined by a veterinarian with special attention to thinning hair, flea infestation, and skin discomfort/allergies, and to provide 3 months of treatment to all of the Animals to eradicate the flea infestation. Fecal samples were collected from the litter boxes due to concerns about internal parasites indicated by loose stool.
13Inspector Dougherty stated that the fecal test results had come back positive for Roundworm and Giardia. Therefore, on December 17, 2024, a second Order was issued to address the unsanitary conditions and internal parasite concerns for the Animals. This Order required the Animals to be examined by a veterinarian regarding internal parasites, providing AWS with the corresponding veterinary records, and ensuring sanitary living conditions and access to clean water for the Animals.
14Inspector Dougherty testified that the Appellants confirmed attending a veterinary clinic on December 21, 2024, but the vet suggested postponing Garden’s treatment for parasites until all the Animals could be treated to avoid reinfection. Various communications took place over the next month, and Inspector Dougherty mentioned that the deadline for compliance with the Order dated December 17, 2024, was extended to February 3, 2025, in order to allow all of the Animals to be examined by the veterinarian and receive parasite treatment collectively.
15On February 12, 2025, Inspector Dougherty testified that she attended the Appellant’s property once again with WPS and two other AWS Inspectors to assess compliance. It was found that none of the animals had been taken to a veterinarian to treat internal parasites, therefore a Notice of Removal was issued the same day, and all 17 Animals were removed for non-compliance. On February 25, 2025, a Decision to Keep (DTK) was issued to keep the Animals in CAWI’s care, and later on March 6, 2025, the SOA was served on the Appellants for the costs of care.
The veterinary care costs are reasonable and uncontested
16The Divisional Court has confirmed that while the burden of proof is on the Appellants to show that the SOA should be revoked or varied, the Respondent has an initial evidentiary burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA reflects the actual costs of necessaries and that these costs were reasonable: Windrift v. CAWI, 2022 ONACRB 24, paragraph 23; Ishankova v. CAWI, 2022 ONACRB 3; Flaro v. CAWI, 2022 ONACRB 5, paragraph 30. On March 6, 2025, AWS sent the Appellant the SOA in the total amount of $13,550.80. This SOA included three invoices for veterinary care dated February 12, February 20, and March 5, 2025, from Chatham-Kent Veterinary Hospital, totaling $6,092.02. The SOA also includes one invoice for boarding care from Callibreeze Kennels Inc., totaling $7,927.73.
17Inspector Dougherty testified on behalf of the Respondent and she stated that immediately upon removal, six cats and two dogs were taken to the veterinary clinic, Chatham-Kent Veterinary Hospital (Vet Hospital) and the following occurred:
i. Five cats were foster animals under 1-year-old so they required vaccination, microchipping, and upon examination, treatment was administered, including Nexgard, which is a wide-spectrum anti-parasite for animals, as well as Panacur, and Baycox.
ii. Garden was taken to the veterinary clinic and treated with Convenia, Dexamethasome, and Nexgard Combo on February 12, 2025.
iii. The two dogs were also taken to a veterinary clinic on the date of removal as the owners had no vet records for them. A full veterinary assessment was done, including vaccinations and microchips, and Nexgard Spectra was applied for parasite control.
iv. The remaining nine cats were not taken to a veterinarian as they had been in AWS’ care in June 2024 and it was known they were up to date with their vaccinations. They were transported to a boarding facility and fecal samples were collected for assessment.
v. Fecal samples were collected for 16 of the 17 animals, as one was missed, and ten of them tested positive for one or more internal parasites. Given that most of the Animals tested positive, the veterinarian recommended providing all of them with broad spectrum parasite treatments.
vi. Of all the cats, only one, named “Baela”, did not have a fecal sample collected and was not microchipped, as the clinic ran out of both.
18Inspector Dougherty testified that the cost of microchipping was not included in the SOA as it was mainly to assist AWS and the boarding facilities with identifying the animals. She also noted that the Vet Hospital emailed her on April 2, 2025, stating a different fecal testing method was used for two of the cats, which cost slightly less, therefore they rendered a new invoice refunding $99.44, which AWS agreed to deduct from the SOA, leaving a balance owing of $13,451.36.
19The Appellants did not dispute any specific veterinary charges in the invoices but maintained that the Animals should not have been removed because the situation was not severe, and they would have administered treatment themselves.
20The Appellant Lexa cross-examined Inspector Dougherty and asked whether any of the Animals tested negative for parasites, and she answered that while a few did, the veterinarian recommended treating them all to prevent reinfection. Lexa also asked whether any steps were taken to minimize the costs on the SOA, and Inspector Dougherty testified that she did not take the cats that had previously been examined by AWS to the clinic, thus saving on examination and vaccination costs.
21Dr. Goldie, who was qualified as an expert in veterinary medicine, went over the three invoices for veterinary care issued by Chatham-Kent Veterinary Hospital and provided an overview of the examination, vaccination, and parasite treatment costs incurred. He provided details on the fecal test results, confirming that most of the cats had one or more parasites detected. Based on this, Dr. Goldie agreed with the treating clinic that all of the Animals needed treatment as they shared space, including a communal litter box, and may have been exposed to parasites, so herd health treatment was appropriate in the circumstances.
22Dr. Goldie also went over the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) 2025 Suggested Fee Guide for Small Animals, which he stated provides the average of fair and reasonable fees for veterinary services based on surveys from various veterinary clinics across Ontario. He said that the OVMA Guide is geared towards general practitioners, not specialists, and it does not cover medication costs or non-veterinary services such as boarding fees. He reviewed the veterinary charges on the three invoices and testified that the costs were reasonable as they fell below the standard fees in the OMVA Guide.
23The Appellants did not contest any of the specific fees in the invoices captured in the SOA. When the Appellant questioned Dr. Goldie about whether all of the services rendered were necessary, he stated that they were, and confirmed again that group treatment was needed as the Animals were freely interacting and could be exposed to the same parasites in the unsanitary living conditions he observed.
24Lastly, Dr. Goldie went over the different treatments administered and noted that Nexguard was commonly used for treating parasites in all animals, but different treatments were administered to Garden due to her skin disease.
25I was persuaded by the testimony of Inspector Dougherty and Dr. Goldie confirming that the costs incurred caring for the Animals were reasonable and necessary, as the Appellants failed to comply with the Orders issued.
26Based on the evidence provided, I am convinced that the Respondent has met their evidentiary burden to prove that the SOA reflected the actual costs of necessaries for the Animals and that these costs were reasonable. I acknowledge the Appellants’ argument that the Animals should not have been removed, but removal is not before me. In conclusion, I confirm the veterinary costs except the deduction of $99.44 identified above.
The boarding costs are reasonable and uncontested
27The SOA sent to the Appellants on March 6, 2025, included one invoice for boarding care from Callibreeze Kennels Inc., totaling $7,927.73. This invoice includes sixteen days of boarding for the Animals, along with puppy food.
28In support of its position, the Respondent’s key witness, Inspector Dougherty, went over the boarding charges and explained that Callibreeze Kennels Inc. charged $23 per diem for boarding between February 12-28, 2025. She testified that, based on her experience, these costs were reasonable in the circumstances.
29Furthermore, Dr. Goldie confirmed that he did not find the boarding fees to be out of the ordinary or excessive. He testified that the boarding fees were reasonable and in line with fees he had seen at other facilities.
30The Appellants did not put forward any specific evidence to show that the boarding fees were unreasonable. In cross-examination, the Appellants mainly questioned Dr. Goldie about whether the veterinary fees charged were necessary, rather than addressing boarding fees.
31I find that the boarding charges reflected in the SOA are supported by the proper invoice, and I accept the evidence of Dr. Goldie and Inspector Dougherty, which confirmed that the per diem boarding rates charged were reasonable and not excessive in the circumstances. Further, the Appellants did not provide any evidence to show that these charges were excessive, unnecessary, or unreasonable. For these reasons, I find the SOA to be reasonable with respect to boarding fees.
The Appellant’s Ability to Pay the SOA
32Having found that the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden, the onus shifts to the Appellants to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA should be revoked or varied.
33The Appellant Lexa testified that she cannot afford to pay the SOA as she is currently unemployed and has no source of income. Lexa also testified that both she and her partner, Chelsey Flanders, are disabled, and that the removal of their service dogs led to difficulties in securing employment.
34Lexa provided her 2024 Notice of Assessment (NOA) in support of this. Lexa also testified that she is actively looking for work in sales, and generally, she makes a commission of around $500 per sale, so her income generally varies on a monthly basis but it is generally around $3000 monthly.
35Chelsey Flanders was not present to testify, but Lexa testified about her ability to pay and stated that Chelsey had no income in 2024 and only recently started working at $26 per hour. Her gross income was said to be around $4160 monthly. However, no NOA or income documents were submitted to substantiate the Appellants’ submissions regarding Chelsey’s income.
36The Appellants also included an expense chart to show that their expenses barely met the household income. However, upon cross-examination it became clear that the expense calculation included pet care costs, but these should be deducted as the Animals had been removed.
37The Respondent submitted that there was insufficient evidence and documentation to support the Appellants' position that they faced financial hardship, such as tax documents, and the Board should therefore decline to vary the SOA.
38I note that Appellants only provided income and tax documents for one individual, and so I only had documentary evidence for Lexa. As well, when asked when she stopped working, Lexa testified that it was only recently in March 2025. While I appreciate that Lexa is currently unemployed, it has only been for a few months and Lexa testified that she is actively seeking employment. Upon reviewing the income and expense charts submitted by the Appellants, I conclude that the evidence does not convincingly show that the Appellants are unable to pay the SOA especially without any financial documents for Chelsey.
39Overall, I find that the costs incurred by AWS under the SOA to provide veterinary and boarding care to the Animals were reasonable and necessary. The amounts charged for both were supported by detailed invoices, and the charges for veterinary care fell below the standard fees recommended in the OMVA Fee Guide. Lastly, the Appellants did not provide sufficient evidence of an inability to pay the account, so I was not persuaded that the SOA should be varied based on financial difficulty.
ORDER
40Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the Act, I vary SOA dated March 18, 2025, and order the Appellants to pay $13,451.36, which includes a deduction of $99.44 as a result of the different fecal test explained above, to the Minister of Finance.
Released: July 3, 2025
Ziba Heydarian, Vice Chair