Tribunals ontario Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Upneet Sagoo
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Mark Sraga, Member
For the Appellant: No one appeared
For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Held by videoconference: May 21, 2025
BACKGROUND
1The matter involves an appeal of two Statements of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) to Upneet Sagoo (Appellant) pursuant to s. 35 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O. 2019, c. 13. (PAWS Act).
2These two SOA’s are in addition to two SOA’s that had been issued to the Appellant in March 2024 and June 2024, which are not part of this proceeding.
3All the animals removed by AWS have been forfeited to the Crown due to non-payment of SOA’s that had been issued in March 2024 and June 2024.
4The Appellant owned 32 cats that AWS removed from her care on March 25, 2024. After the removal of the 32 cats, 17 kittens were born while the cats were in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent).
5On November 28, 2024, AWS removed an additional 10 cats and 4 dogs from the Appellant’s residence.
6On December 10, 2024, AWS issued SOA #1 in the amount of $113,236.11 for the boarding, veterinary care, and animal care costs for all 32 cats that were removed on March 25, 2024, as well as the 17 kittens born in AWS’s custody.
7On February 24, 2025, AWS issued SOA #2 in the amount of $18,091.31 for boarding, veterinary care, and animal care costs for 10 cats and 4 dogs that were removed on November 28, 2024.
8The Appellant appealed SOA #1 and SOA #2 to the Animal Care Review Board (Board). The appeal of SOA #1 was submitted on March 9, 2025, and the appeal of SOA #2 was submitted on March 17, 2025. In the second NOA, the Appellant requested the return of her breeding cats (two pregnant queens and kings). The Board assigned File No. 16813/ACRB for the appeal of SOA #1 and File No. 16814/ACRB for the appeal of SOA #2.
9During a case conference held on March 21, 2025, regarding these two appeals the parties consented to having these proceedings heard at the same time, pursuant to clause 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, ch. S.22. (SPPA).
10The Respondent argues that the SOA reflects actual and reasonable costs incurred in providing care for the animals and seeks to have the SOA confirmed. The Appellant’s NOA dated March 9, 2025, states that they are seeking to have both SOAs dismissed due to the animals having been forfeited to the Crown.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
11Should SOA #1, dated February 24, 2025, in the amount of $113,236.11 be confirmed, varied, or revoked?
12Should SOA #2, dated February 24, 2025, in the amount of $18,091.31 be confirmed, varied, or revoked?
RESULT
13SOA #1 in the amount of $113,236.11 is reduced by $2,550.98 and the Appellant is ordered to pay the varied amount of $110,685.13 to the Minister of Finance.
14SOA #2 in the amount of $18,091.31 is confirmed and the Appellant is ordered to pay $18,091.31 to the Minister of Finance.
PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES
a) The Appellant did not attend the scheduled hearing
15The hearing was scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. on May 21, 2025. However, the Appellant was not in attendance.
16The Board’s Case Management Officer (CMO) tried contacting the Appellant by telephone and left a voicemail message. The CMO did not receive any response from the Appellant.
17The hearing of these appeals was originally scheduled to be held on April 15 and 16, 2025. On the morning of April 15, 2025, prior to the scheduled start time of the hearing, the Appellant emailed the Board requesting an adjournment. The Respondent consented to the adjournment request and an Adjournment Order was issued adjourning the hearing to May 21 and May 26, 2025. On April 28, 2025, the Board emailed both parties the Notice of Hearing with the revised hearing dates. The Appellant therefore had 3 weeks’ notice of the revised hearing dates.
18The Appellant did not submit any additional adjournment requests and did not respond to the CMO’s voicemail message that was left on the morning of May 21, 2025. I am satisfied that the Appellant was given notice of the videoconference hearing and, as a result, ordered the hearing to proceed at 10:10 a.m. pursuant to s. 7(3) of the SPPA.
b) Respondent’s Motion to Amend the Board’s Case Conference Report and Order
19On March 28, 2025, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking to have a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) issued by the Board on March 24, 2025, amended.
20The Respondent sought:
An order to amend paragraphs 5, 6, and 12 of the CCRO “to properly identify the nature of the appeals;” These paragraphs addressed the subject matter of the appeals; and
An order striking one of the issues in dispute that referenced the Appellant’s request for the return of the animals.
21Regarding the first order it sought, the Respondent submitted that paragraphs 5, 6, and 12 of the CCRO incorrectly stated that Board File No. 16813/ACRB was an appeal of both SOA #1 and SOA #2. The Respondent also noted that the CCRO incorrectly identifies Board File No. 16814/ACRB as pertaining to a request for the return of the Appellant’s animals.
22The Respondent referenced two emails from the Board Registrar, dated March 11 and March 18, 2025, that indicated that one of the SOA appeals was assigned File No. 16813/ACRB and that the second SOA appeal was assigned File No. 16814/ACRB.
23The Respondent also submitted that there has been no proper Application for Return of Animals made to the Board and that since there is no Application for Return of Animals before the Board, only the appeals of SOA #1 and SOA #2 should be the subject of the hearing. The Respondent further argued that even if the Board determined that there was an Application for Return of Animals submitted to the Board, there is no remedy available to the Board to order the return of the animals since they have all been forfeited to the Crown. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the third issue in dispute referencing a return of animals should be struck from the CCRO.
24There were no submissions from the Appellant regarding this motion.
25Having reviewed the March 11 and March 18, 2025 emails from the Board Registrar, it is clear that Board File No. 16813/ACRB related to the appeal of SOA #1 and Board File No. 16814/ACRB related to the appeal of SOA #2.
26I also reviewed the two Notices of Appeal (NOA) submitted by the Appellant to the Board, each of which references one of the SOAs. In the NOA submitted on March 17, 2025, the Appellant sought the return of her breeding stock as a remedy. However, under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board can only confirm, vary or revoke a statement of account – it cannot order the return of an animal as part of an appeal of a statement of account.
27I was also persuaded by the fact that the Appellant had not brought an Application for Return of an Animal with these Notices of Appeal because one of the Board’s emails from March 2025 informed the Appellant that she needed to submit a separate Application for Revocation of an Order or Return of an Animal Form (under s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act).
28S. 38(4) of the PAWS Act states that “An owner or custodian of an animal that has been kept in or taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care may apply to the Board by notice in writing to have the animal returned if the conditions that caused the animal to be kept in or taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care have ceased to exist.”
29Despite being informed of this by the Board, the Appellant did not submit an application for return under s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act and therefore the issue of whether the animals should be returned to the Appellant was not before this Board in the hearing of these appeals.
30Based on the reasons stated above, I granted the Respondent’s motion and confirmed that these appeals relate to two SOAs and that the issues to be decided on these appeals were whether the SOAs should be confirmed, revoked or varied.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
31Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act states that the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) may serve on an animal owner or custodian a statement of account respecting the costs incurred in relation to their animals in circumstances where:
An inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress and provide necessaries;
An inspector has removed the animal under section 31(1) or (2); or
CAWI has kept or taken an animal in care.
32Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act provides a list of costs that may be recovered including, costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress, remove and take the animal into care, provide care under a Decision to Keep, and costs to take any prescribed action in relation to the animal.
33Section 35(3) of the PAWS Act states that an animal’s owner or custodian is liable for the amount set out in a statement of account subject to an order for the Board pursuant to s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act.
34Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act, as the state of being:
in need of proper care, water, food, or shelter,
injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or
abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation, or neglect.
35On an appeal of a statement of account, the Respondent has the initial evidentiary burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the charges reflected on the SOA reflect the actual costs incurred and that these costs are reasonable. The burden then shifts to the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA should be varied or revoked: Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 43-51.
Statement of Account #1
36For the reasons that follow, SOA #1 dated February 24, 2025, is varied from $113,236.11 to $110,685.13.
37Christopher Chew, Regional Supervisor, AWS (RS Chew) testified on behalf of the Respondent. He had reviewed both SOAs issued to the Appellant by AWS Inspector Brittany Lee, who had prepared the SOAs.
38RS Chew testified that the SOA#1 dated February 24, 2025, in the amount of $113, 236.11 was issued for the 49 cats and kittens in the care of the Respondent.
39SOA #1 was accompanied by detailed invoices for the costs incurred for veterinary care, boarding, animal care, and transportation provided for the 32 cats that were removed on March 25, 2024, and the 17 kittens that were born while in the Respondent’s care along with a locksmith service cost.
40These costs and invoices were from 8 different service providers and are detailed below:
| Service Provider | Invoice # | Service(s) Provided | Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-404 | Boarding, Veterinary and Animal Care Costs | $9,910.10 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-410 | Boarding Costs | $17,718.40 |
| Huronia Veterinary Emergency Clinic | 157050 | Veterinary Care | $380.80 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-415 | Boarding and Animal Care Costs | $18,113.90 |
| Hale Veterinary Clinic | 171140 | Veterinary Care | $293.80 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-468 | Boarding Costs | $593.25 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-470 | Transportation Costs | $177.98 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-471 | Boarding Costs | $1,779.75 |
| Guelph Animal Hospital | 47016 | Veterinary Care | $68.57 |
| Guelph Animal Hospital | 47048 | Veterinary Care | $616.58 |
| Guelph Animal Hospital | 47010 | Veterinary Care | $1,192.65 |
| Emergency Veterinary Clinic of Waterloo | 141552 | Veterinary Care | $597.00 |
| Georgian Triangle Humane Society | 0010 | Veterinary Care and Boarding | $2,864.55 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-426 | Boarding and Animal Care Costs | $17,828.01 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-435 | Boarding Costs | $16,611.00 |
| Hamilton Burlington SPCA | 7747 | Veterinary Care | $1,341.73 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-448 | Boarding and Animal Care Costs | $15,142.00 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-463 | Boarding Costs | $4,034.10 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-478 | Boarding Costs | $3,169.65 |
| EA Locksmith | 180 | Locksmith service | $802.30 |
| Total Amount | $113,236.11 |
41I find that the total costs contained in SOA#1 do reflect the actual costs of all the invoices received by the CAWI from the service providers.
42The Respondent entered into evidence an expert report dated October 4, 2024 prepared by Dr. Ian Welch, DVM. Dr. Welch was engaged for the purpose of reviewing the treatments provided and associated charges contained in the invoices were proper and needed. The report was accompanied by Dr. Welch’s Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Form.
43I relied on Dr. Welch’s unchallenged expert report and found it helpful in establishing that the costs that included in the SOA were reasonable and warranted.
44Specifically, Dr. Welch indicated in his report that he reviewed invoices for veterinary care that were submitted to the Respondent by Dogwood Animal Sanctuary, Emergency Veterinary Clinic of Waterloo, Guelph Animal Hospital, Georgian Triangle Humane Society, Hamilton Burlington SPCA, Hale Veterinary Clinic, and Huronia Veterinary Emergency Clinic. Dr. Welch states in his report that the veterinary fees charged by these service providers were in line with the Ontario Veterinary Medical Associate Fee Guide (OVMA Fee Guideline). In his opinion, some fees that were not specifically covered by the OVMA Fee Guideline were otherwise consistent with industry standards.
45Based on Dr. Welch’s report, I find that the veterinary care provided to the cats and the fees charged by the various service providers for the cats that had been removed and kept in the Respondent’s care to be reasonable. Dr. Welch also stated in his report that he found the daily boarding rate charge for the cats and kittens to be fair and reasonable.
46A witness statement from AWS Inspector Brittany Lee was contained in the Respondents Book of Documents which was submitted as evidence. In her witness statement, Inspector Lee states that the daily boarding rate of $35.00/day/cat and $15.00/day/kitten included kenneling, bedding, enrichment (toys, exercise, etc.), adequate and appropriate food and water, maintenance of sanitary environments, and daily interaction with staff. Inspector Lee’s statement also states that some of the cats required specific prescription diets and these food costs were not included in the regular boarding costs.
47Inspector Lee also states in her statement that many of the cats boarded were long haired and required regular grooming to prevent severe matting of their coats. She indicated that some cats required grooming the day of removal on March 25, 2024, due to the poor sanitary conditions they were in and matting of their coats and that this service was provided by Dogwood Animal Sanctuary.
48While Inspector Lee did not testify in the hearing, I find the contents in her witness statement to be factual and detailed and have no reason to question their accuracy or validity.
49However, in reviewing the detailed invoices the Respondent submitted as evidence, I find that there are 3 invoices that include costs incurred after the cats and kittens were forfeited to the Crown and were noted as such by AWS Inspector Lee. Once an animal is forfeited the owner or custodian of the animal(s) is no longer responsible for any costs related to the care of the animal(s) as the Crown is now considered to be the owner of the animal(s). These invoices are as follows:
| Service Provider | Invoice # | Services Provided | Total Costs | AWS Notation on Invoice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-468 | Boarding Costs | $593.25 | All costs excluded – after forfeiture |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-470 | Transportation Costs | $177.98 | All costs excluded – after forfeiture |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-471 | Boarding Costs | $1,779.75 | All costs excluded – after forfeiture |
| Total Costs | $2,550.98 |
50I also note that the Respondent provided no explanation or justification for the inclusion of an invoice in SOA #1 from EA Locksmith for $802.30.
51Therefore, I find that the Appellant is not liable for these four invoices totaling $2550.98 as they are for costs that were incurred after the forfeiture of the animals and reduce the amount of SOA#1 by $2550.98 resulting in SOA #1 being varied from $113,236.11 to $110.685.13.
Statement of Account #2
52For 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 in providing care for the animals that were removed and kept in the Respondent’s care and that these costs were reasonable.
53RS Chew testified that SOA#2, dated February 24, 2025, in the amount of $18,091.31 related to 10 cats and 4 dogs in the care of the Respondent.
54SOA #2 was supported by detailed invoices for the costs incurred for the veterinary care, boarding, and animal care provided for the 10 cats and 4 dogs removed on November 28, 2024, for a total amount of $18,091.31. These costs and invoices were from 3 different service providers and are detailed below:
| Service Provider | Invoice # | Service(s) Provided | Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lakeside Mobile Veterinary Services | 000308 | Veterinary Care | $528.28 |
| Lakeside Mobile Veterinary Services | 000323 | Veterinary Care | $226.00 |
| Lakeside Mobile Veterinary Services | 000327 | Veterinary Care | $76.28 |
| Lakeside Mobile Veterinary Services | 000332 | Veterinary Care | $717.55 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-631 | Boarding Costs | $4,926.80 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-640 | Boarding and Animal Care Costs | $5,188.96 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-648 | Veterinary Care Costs | $276.85 |
| Dogwood Animal Sanctuary | 2022-649 | Boarding Costs | $791.00 |
| Georgian Triangle Humane Society | 0012 | Veterinary Care and Boarding Costs | $5,359.59 |
| Total Costs | $18,091.31 |
55I find that on the balance of probabilities, that the costs included in SOA#2 reflect the actual costs incurred by the CAWI in providing the necessary care to the animals and that these costs were reasonable.
56The Respondent acknowledged that they did not include a report from a veterinarian or other expert witness attesting that the veterinary charges invoiced to the Respondent were in line with either the OVMA Fee Guideline or industry standards. The Respondent stated that the veterinary charges reflected in SOA #2 are not a significant portion of the total amount of SOA #2 and that the lack of such a report should not impact my decision to confirm the SOA.
57The Respondent further argued that the contents of Inspector Brittany Lee’s witness statement along with the inclusion of the veterinary records submitted as evidence support their position that the charges were necessary.
58Having reviewed the documents admitted into evidence, including the veterinary records for all the animals and the detailed invoices for the veterinary services provided by Lakeside Mobile Veterinary Services and the Georgian Triangle Humane Society, I find that the charges contained in SOA # 2 reflect the actual costs of care and treatments provided to the animals and that they were reasonable. The Appellant did not provide any documentary evidence to indicate that the SOA contained costs that were unreasonable or excessive or why any reason why she should not be responsible for the costs that were incurred by the Respondent. Therefore, I confirm SOA #2 in the amount of $18,091.31.
ORDER
59Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I:
Vary SOA #1, dated February 24, 2025, from $113,236.11 to $110,685.13;
Confirm SOA #2, dated February 24, 2025, in the amount of $18,091.31;
Order the Appellant to pay
127,974.14$128,776.44 to the Minister of Finance.
Released: July 17, 2025
Mark Sraga, Member