Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: July 3, 2025

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

Between:

Rick Blokhorst

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Mark Sraga, Member

For the Appellant: Rick Blokhorst, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Hoursa Yazdi, Counsel

Videoconference hearing: May 13, 2025

BACKGROUND

1The matter involves an appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) dated March 31, 2025, in the amount of $2,402.88 for boarding and veterinary care costs issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

2In February 2025, Mr. Blokhorst, (Appellant), recognizing that Ollie was not eating, not drinking, and losing weight, contacted various organizations seeking assistance with the care of Ollie as he could not afford to provide the necessary veterinarian care.

3That same month, AWS became aware of the Appellant’s situation and AWS Inspector Jennifer Lee inspected the Appellant’s residence and identified that Ollie required veterinary care and treatment due to a thin body condition. Inspector Lee issued an order under s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), requiring the owner to have Ollie examined and treated by a veterinarian.

4In March 2025, due to non-compliance with the order issued in February 2025, AWS removed Ollie from the Appellant’s residence. Ollie was later kept in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s (CAWI) care due to the Appellant not being able to provide Ollie with the necessary veterinary care.

5The CAWI (Respondent) argues that the SOA reflects actual and reasonable costs incurred to provide care for Ollie and it seeks to have the SOA confirmed. The Appellant is seeking to have the SOA revoked or reduced due to his inability to pay.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

6Should the SOA, dated March 31, 2025, in the amount of $2,402.88 be confirmed, varied, or revoked?

RESULT

7The SOA in the amount of $2,402.88 is confirmed and the Appellant is required to pay the amount to the Minister of Finance.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Reason for Ollie’s removal and the decision to keep him in care

8AWS Inspector Tovah Veats testified on behalf of the Respondent. The Inspector recounted the events that led to AWS’s involvement and why Ollie was removed as well as the need for veterinary care and boarding of Ollie.

9Inspector Veats testified that in response to AWS becoming aware of a concern for two dogs at the Appellant’s residence, one reported to not be eating or drinking and the other suspected to having ringworm, AWS inspected the Appellant’s residence on February 20, 2025.

10The inspection identified that only one dog needed veterinary care and treatment – Ollie, and that Inspector Lee issued an order on February 27, 2025, requiring that Ollie be examined and treated by a veterinarian by March 13, 2025.

11Inspector Veats also testified that on March 7, 2025, the Appellant’s partner, Alysha Kennedy, emailed Inspector Lee requesting that Ollie be removed as they could not provide the required care to Ollie. Inspector Veats further testified that she informed Ms. Kennedy that AWS could not remove Ollie until the completion date of the order had passed.

12Inspector Veats testified that on March 13, 2025, a reinspection was conducted by Inspector Veats, and she confirmed that while Ollie had been taken to a veterinarian for examination, no diagnostic tests were performed, or treatment provided as the owners could not afford them. Inspector Veats further testified that she observed Ollie to be bright, alert, and responsive but had a very thin body condition with ribs, spine, hips, and shoulder blades all easily visible.

13Inspector Veats further testified that on March 13, 2025, AWS removed Ollie because of the apparent non-compliance with the order, pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act.

The Statement of Account

14The SOA pertains to costs incurred by the Respondent for veterinary care and boarding costs provided to Ollie following his removal on March 13, 2025.

15The total amount of the SOA is $2,402.88 and is comprised of the following:

a. Veterinary costs: $1,476.84; and

b. Boarding costs: $926.04.

16The Appellant did not challenge the accuracy of the SOA or the necessity of the care that resulted in these costs, but is seeking to have the SOA revoked or reduced due to his inability to pay.

17Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act makes an 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 and provide necessaries;

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

(c) The CAWI has kept the animal in care or taken the animal into care.

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, and costs for providing care for an animal that has been removed or kept in care.

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. The burden then 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 that the Respondent has established that the cost contained in the SOA reflect that actual amount of costs incurred and that the costs were reasonable.

Veterinary Costs

23Inspector Veats testified that the veterinary care costs reflected in the SOA for $1, 476.84 included examinations, medications, tests, and treatments provided to relieve Ollie’s distress. The Respondent filed three invoices into evidence in support of the veterinary costs contained in the SOA. Two invoices from Clarkson Village Animal Hospital and one from Highway 24 Veterinary Clinic providing details of the tests, examination, medications and treatments provided to Ollie and the corresponding charges for them.

24Inspector Veats testified that she took Ollie to the Highway 24 Veterinary Clinic for examination due to Ollie’s physical condition. She chose this veterinary clinic because it had been used by AWS previously, staff were known to be knowledgeable, it had reasonable veterinary rates and was near the Appellant’s residence.

25Inspector Veats testified that after the initial examination at the Highway 24 Veterinary Clinic, Ollie was taken to Clarkson Village Animal Hospital at the request of the AWS Integrated Support Team. The medical care coordinator of the Integrated Support Team had determined that Ollie needed to be in a medical boarding facility due to his overall condition and risk of his condition worsening.

26Inspector Veats testified that she reviewed all the invoices submitted to AWS by the veterinary hospitals and confirmed the amounts, as reflected in the SOA.

27Dr. Jessica Cusmariu was the veterinarian who oversaw the veterinary care provided to Ollie at the Clarkson Village Animal Hospital. She provided her expert opinion on Ollie’s medical condition.

28Dr. Cusmariu testified that there have been multiple veterinarians providing care to Ollie and that her expert opinion is based on her own firsthand assessment of Ollie and a review of information provided by the other treating veterinarians.

29Dr. Cusmariu also testified that Ollie’s medical condition has been difficult to diagnose and required various diagnostic tests and examinations to rule out common and uncommon causes of Ollie’s chronic diarrhea and weight loss. Dr. Cusmariu testified that the current diagnosis is that Ollie has inflammatory bowel disease with an alternative possible diagnosis of intestinal lymphoma.

30Dr. Cusmariu indicated the reason for the different diagnostic tests and treatments and the corresponding charges contained in the three invoices submitted by the Respondent to support the veterinary charges contained in the SOA. Dr. Cusmariu testified that the charges for both the diagnosis and treatments were necessary, reasonable, and significantly lower than the recommended fees found in the 2025 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) Fee Guideline.

31Based on the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Cusmariu and Inspector Veats, I find that the costs associated with Ollie’s veterinary care were reasonable and were accurately reflected on the SOA.

Boarding Costs

32For the reasons that follow, I find that the boarding costs contained in the SOA in the amount of $926.04 were reasonable and reflected the actual cost of boarding services charged to AWS.

33Inspector Veats testified that Ollie was initially boarded after removal at Shadowbrook Kennels for two days – March 13 and March 14, 2025, and that this boarding facility had been regularly used by AWS, was close to the city and had vacancy to accommodate Ollie. According to Inspector Veats, the daily rate of $45.00/day charged by this boarding facility is consistent with other boarding facilities.

34Dr. Cusmariu testified regarding the medical boarding charges that were incurred once Ollie was transferred from Shadowbrook Kennels to the Clarkson Village Animal Hospital.

35She said the daily medical boarding rate charged was reasonable and had been significantly reduced from the suggested fees contained in the 2025 OVMA Fee Guideline.

36Dr. Cusmariu testified that during medical boarding, there is on-going monitoring of Ollie’s vital statistics, his urinary and bowel movements, activity levels and amount and type of food ingested, all of which is necessary to help determine his response to various treatment protocols and assist in determining a diagnosis of Ollie’s medical condition.

37Dr. Cusmariu also testified that during the medical boarding, Ollie was provided with daily subcutaneous fluid therapy to ensure he did not become dehydrated as a result of the chronic diarrhea he was experiencing.

38Inspector Veats testified that she reviewed all the invoices submitted to AWS by the boarding facility and the veterinary hospital that provided medical boarding. She confirmed that the amounts, which were reflected in the SOA, were correct and I accept her testimony on the accuracy of the invoice amounts as being correct.

39The Appellant did not challenge the amounts charged. The Appellant questioned Inspector Veats on whether the boarding costs could have been avoided if Ollie had been returned to the Appellant’s residence each night, instead of being boarded at the veterinary hospital, and then returned each morning for care and treatment. Inspector Veats responded that this is not a standard practice by AWS and that it was determined by the Integrated Support Team that Ollie needed to be kept in a medical boarding facility due to his needing constant monitoring, and care. I find Inspector Veats’ explanation in response to the Appellant’s question clearly addressed why Ollie needed to remain in a medical boarding facility and could not be kept at the Appellant’s residence, and I find the explanation reasonable.

40Therefore, based on the otherwise uncontested testimony and evidence of Inspector Veats and Dr. Cusmariu, which I accepted, I find that the amount of the boarding costs charged were reasonable and accurately reflected in the SOA.

Appellant’s ability to pay

41For the reasons that follow, I find that the Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that they are unable to pay the SOA.

42The Appellant testified that he has limited financial means to pay the SOA. He reasons that if he could afford the SOA, he would have had Ollie treated and paid the veterinary costs to care for Ollie.

43The Appellant did provide some evidence of his income and monthly expenses, including a letter of employment as well as a receipt showing a monthly rent payment made on May 1, 2025, a grocery purchase, a car fuel purchase, and details of monthly car loan payments. However, the Appellant did not provide a detailed monthly breakdown of all their expenses such as total grocery/food purchases, fuel purchases, other monthly expenses such as insurance payments, clothing, credit card debt/payments and utilities compared to their overall monthly income, including any possible income earned by Alysha Kennedy, who resides with the Appellant.

44I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s situation, and it is clear to me that the Appellant cares very much for Ollie and his well-being based on the actions taken to try and get help for Ollie and that they were trying to in the Appellant’s words – “save his life”. However, the Appellant has provided no persuasive evidence to substantiate their claim of inability to pay the SOA. The only evidence provided as detailed in [43] above is not sufficient to demonstrate an inability to pay and I am not convinced of the Appellant’s claim of their inability to pay the SOA.

45The Respondent objected to the Appellant’s claim of financial hardship and inability to pay. Counsel argued that the Appellant could have pursued an agreement with CAWI regarding a reduction of the SOA or a payment plan as per s. 35(5) of the PAWS Act but did not do so.

46The Respondent further 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. The Responded added that the intent of the PAWS Act is not to be punitive but to hold pet owners accountable for costs incurred when CAWI provides care to their animals.

47I do not need to decide these issues, as I have previously concluded, I find based on the evidence provided by the Appellant that they have failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are facing financial hardships and are unable to pay the amounts owed.

ORDER

48Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, I confirm the SOA in the amount of $2,402.88 and order that these costs be paid to the Minister of Finance.

Released: July 3, 2025

________________________

Mark Sraga, Member