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:
Donald Evers
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Alisa Chaplick, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Donald Evers, Appellant Julie Moorehouse, Representative (Delegate of Bob Bailey, Member of Provincial Parliament, Sarnia Lambton)
For the Respondent: Alice (Yun) Liu, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: March 5, 2025
OVERVIEW
1This matter concerns an appeal of a Statement of Account (“SOA”) dated January 24, 2025, issued by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) in relation to Kitty, a cat who is approximately 23 years old.
2Donald Evers (the “Appellant”) is Kitty’s owner. In 2024, the Appellant suffered a heart attack resulting in an acquired brain injury. Subsequently, he experienced challenges in providing ongoing care to Kitty.
3AWS provided the Appellant with a SOA dated January 24, 2025, in the amount of $1,454.36, pursuant to section 35 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (the “PAWS Act”). The SOA covers boarding and veterinary costs incurred in relation to Kitty between January 9, 2025 and January 15, 2025.
4On January 31, 2025, the Appellant appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (“Board”). The Appellant seeks to have the SOA revoked based on financial hardship and inability to pay and the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (the “Respondent”) seeks to have the SOA confirmed.
5The matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing.
ISSUE
6Should the SOA dated January 24, 2025, be confirmed, revoked, or varied?
RESULT
7For the reasons that follow, I vary the SOA to the amount of $145.44. I find that the expenses in the SOA were reasonable in the circumstances. However, pursuant to s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, I reduce the amount by 90 percent based on the Appellant’s limited ability to pay.
BACKGROUND
8On January 7, 2025, an AWS Inspector, Shane Sennhauser, conducted an inspection at the Appellant’s home and served him with an Order (the “Order”) under section 30(1) of the PAWS Act. The Order required Kitty to be examined by a veterinarian as described below.
9On January 9, 2025, Inspector Sennhauser returned to the Appellant’s home and was not satisfied that the Appellant had complied with the requirements of the Order. Accordingly, he removed Kitty from the Appellant pursuant to a Notice of Removal (“NOR”). On January 17, 2025, Regional Supervisor Carly Atrooshi of AWS issued a Notice of Decision to Keep an Animal(s) in the Respondent’s Care for Kitty (“DTK”).
10AWS provided the Appellant with a SOA dated January 24, 2025, in the amount of $1,454.36 as described above.
11As of the date of the hearing, Kitty remains in the Respondent’s care. The Appellant is not seeking Kitty’s return.
ANALYSIS
The Law
12Pursuant to Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act, an animal owner is liable for costs incurred by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector in relation to the animal in circumstances where:
an inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress by providing it with necessaries;
an inspector has removed the animal under s. 31(1) or (2); or
the Chief Animal Welfare inspector has kept the animal in care or taken the animal into care.
13Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act explains that costs may include, among other things:
costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress;
costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care;
costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed;
costs of providing care for an animal that has been kept or taken into care.
14While the burden of proof in this appeal is on the Appellant 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.1
The Evidence
15Inspector Sennhauser testified on behalf of the Respondent. He recounted the events that led to AWS’ removal of Kitty, how the need for veterinary care and boarding arose, and what the veterinary care consisted of.
16Inspector Sennhauser’s evidence was that on January 6, 2025, he received information from AWS dispatch regarding concerns for a cat. On January 7, 2025, Inspector Sennhauser attended the Appellant’s property, found Kitty to be in distress and served the Appellant with the Order noted above, which was not appealed.
17The Order included the following: Kitty needed to be examined by a veterinarian with special attention to overall body condition and health assessment and an extremely matted coat. In addition, the Order stated that the veterinarian should pay special attention to addressing concerns regarding lack of diet, not eating and drinking regularly and not using the litter box. The Order also required the Appellant to provide the AWS inspector with documentation from the veterinarian outlining examination findings and treatments recommended and undertaken by the veterinarian as well as a statement of treatments that the Appellant has carried out at home according to the veterinarian’s recommendations. The completion date and time in the Order was January 9, 2025 at 10:00 am.
18The Respondent’s evidence was that on January 9, 2025, after the completion time in the Order, Inspector Sennhauser attended at the Appellant’s property once again and determined that the Appellant did not seek medical care for Kitty as required by the Order.
19Accordingly, on January 9, 2025, Inspector Sennhauser removed Kitty from the Appellant’s property pursuant to the NOR noted above. The NOR was issued under section 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act, based on the fact that the Order issued by an inspector on January 7, 2025 with respect to Kitty had not been complied with. The NOR was not appealed. As a result of the NOR, Kitty was taken to Chatham Kent Veterinary Hospital (the “Hospital”) by AWS.
20Kitty received treatment in the Hospital and on January 10, 2025, Kitty was cleared to leave the Hospital and was moved to a boarding facility.
21On January 17, 2025, Regional Supervisor Carly Atrooshi of AWS issued the DTK in relation to Kitty, noted above, pursuant to section 31(6) of the PAWS Act. The DTK stated that Regional Supervisor Atrooshi determined that keeping Kitty in the Respondent’s care was necessary to relieve the animal’s distress and/or Regional Supervisor Atrooshi had reasonable grounds to believe that Kitty may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
22With respect to the SOA, Inspector Sennhauser testified that he tried to serve the Appellant with the SOA personally but there was never a response at the Appellant’s door when he attended the property to serve the SOA. Accordingly, on January 24, 2025, he mailed the SOA, as well as the DTK, to the Appellant by both registered and regular mail.
23Included in the Respondent’s evidence was an invoice for veterinary care for Kitty from the Hospital from January 9, 2025 – January 10, 2025 (“Invoice 1”). Invoice 1 included the costs of bloodwork, subcutaneous fluids and hospital care for Kitty. Invoice 1 totaled $1,279.21 which was reflected in the SOA. Also included in the evidence was an invoice from the boarding facility (“Invoice 2”). Invoice 2 was for boarding Kitty for 5 days at $23.00 per day plus transportation from the Hospital to the boarding facility for $40.00. Invoice 2 totaled $175.15 and was also reflected in the SOA. Invoice 1 and Invoice 2 totaled $1,454.36 which is the amount of the SOA.
24During the hearing, the Respondent called Dr. Bruce Robertson, a veterinarian, to testify as an expert witness. After reviewing Dr. Robertson’s qualifications, as per his Curriculum Vitae, counsel for the Respondent asked for Dr. Robertson to be qualified as an expert in veterinary medicine. The Appellant did not object to this. On the basis of Dr. Robertson’s qualifications in his Curriculum Vitae and the lack of objection from the Appellant, Dr. Robertson was qualified as an expert in veterinary medicine.
25Dr. Robertson produced an Expert Witness Report dated February 24, 2025 regarding this matter. After reviewing Invoice 1 and Invoice 2, Dr. Robertson stated that the Appellant was charged below market rate for the services in both invoices. With respect to Invoice 1, Dr. Robertson stated that over $500 in products and services were not invoiced. For instance, with respect to Invoice 1, Dr. Robertson stated that the Appellant was not charged for X-ray set up and 2 views for Kitty as well as a nail trim for Kitty. In addition, Dr. Robertson testified that there were charges on Invoice 2 that were below market rates.
26I accept the Respondent’s evidence and find that the $1,454.36 in costs set out in the SOA are reasonable. This conclusion was supported by Dr. Robertson’s evidence regarding Invoice 1 and Invoice 2 that the charges were below market rates. I also find that the types of services provided were necessary to keep Kitty healthy and safe and the expenses related to that care fell within s. 35(2) of the PAWS Act including, “[c]osts of providing care for an animal that has been removed” pursuant to s. 35(2)3 of the PAWS Act.
27Having found that the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden, the onus then shifts to the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA should be revoked or varied.
28The Appellant did not dispute the costs in the SOA, as supported by the accompanying invoices, and the Appellant did not dispute the actions taken by Inspector Sennhauser. However, the Appellant sought to have the SOA revoked based on financial hardship and inability to pay.
29The Appellant’s evidence was that he did not remember what Inspector Sennhauser said to him when they had previously spoken and that he was unaware that he had to take Kitty to the veterinarian pursuant to the Order. The Appellant did however state that he remembered Inspector Sennhauser taking Kitty from his property.
30The Appellant entered into evidence Notice of Assessments for the 2023 and 2022 calendar years which supported his position regarding lack of ability to pay. The Notice of Assessment for the 2023 calendar year indicated that the Appellant’s total income was $20,853 and the Notice of Assessment for the 2022 calendar year indicated that the Appellant’s total income was $19,557. The Appellant’s evidence was that after rent and groceries, he only has $1.38 left at the end of each month and that all of his money goes to necessities.
31I find the evidence regarding the Appellant’s limited financial means to be reliable and I accept that the Appellant’s financial circumstances would make it extremely difficult for him to pay the SOA. The income noted on his Notice of Assessments is very low.
32I also considered the Respondent’s submissions that the costs in the SOA were reasonable and that the Appellant is no longer paying for cat food and expenses so he should have some ability to pay the amount in the SOA. Because of these reasonable submissions made by the Respondent, I declined to revoke the SOA in its entirety.
33However, I also accept the Respondent’s evidence including his Notice of Assessments for 2023 and 2022. In addition, I accept the Respondent’s evidence that he suffered a brain injury, which caused challenges in the Appellant’s ability to pay for Kitty’s care. I find, based on the evidence, that the Appellant has extremely limited ability to pay the SOA. As a result, due to the circumstances of this case, I am varying the SOA to $145.44, which is a 90 percent reduction.
ORDER
34Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I vary the SOA and order that the Appellant pay $145.44 to the Minister of Finance.
Released: March 26, 2025
____________________________
Alisa Chaplick, Vice-Chair