Katy Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 169

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 2025-08-08

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

Between:

Katy Touchette Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Alisa Chaplick, Vice-Chair

Appearances: For the Appellant: Carson Frankum, Paralegal For the Respondent: Joanna Chan, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: June 19, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Katy Touchette, the Appellant, owned 40 sheep, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) on November 14, 2024, from a barn where they were housed in Milton, Ontario. Two of the sheep died on November 18, 2024. The Appellant also owned approximately 5 lambs that were born while in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (the “Respondent”) (referred to as the “sheep” or the “Animals”).

2On December 16, 2024, AWS served a Statement of Account on the Appellant in the amount of $15,129.72 which was not before the Animal Care Review Board (“Board”) at this hearing (“First SOA”). That matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing and, by a decision of the Board released on March 26, 2025, the Board confirmed the First SOA in its entirety (see Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 16603 (“March 2025 SOA Decision”) which was discussed during this hearing). The Appellant did not pay the First SOA and as a result, at the current hearing, the Respondent stated that the Animals were all forfeited to the Crown on April 17, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (“PAWS Act”).

3The March 2025 SOA Decision states that the First SOA covered the period from November 14, 2024 – December 3, 2024.

4On April 26, 2025, AWS served the Appellant with a second and final Statement of Account (“SOA”) for costs including boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to the Animals in the amount of $91,628.36, pursuant to s. 35 of the PAWS Act. This SOA is the matter that is before the Board in this hearing. The SOA covers costs from the end of the First SOA to the date of forfeiture. However, by way of clarification, the Respondent stated that a few charges from the time period of the First SOA – i.e. between November 14, 2024 – December 3, 2024, were not included in the First SOA, so they were included in the SOA that is the subject of this hearing.

5In addition, the Respondent amended the SOA that is at issue in this hearing to $91,068.22, on or about June 17, 2025. This adjustment removed an emergency veterinarian visit charge from April 4, 2025 and a deadstock disposal fee in Invoice 1010. The amendments were made pursuant to an agreement between the parties prior to the hearing.

6The Appellant appealed the SOA pursuant to a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) dated May 8, 2025. The matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing.

ISSUE

7Should the SOA dated April 26, 2025, be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

RESULT

8For the reasons that follow, I confirm the SOA in the amount of $91,068.22. I find that the costs in the SOA were reasonable in the circumstances and note that invoices were submitted with the SOA to substantiate the costs incurred. In addition, I was provided with no documentary or otherwise persuasive evidence regarding the Appellant’s assertion that she had limited ability to pay the SOA. In particular, the Appellant’s evidence did not establish financial hardship warranting revocation or a reduction of the SOA based on ability to pay.

BACKGROUND

9On November 14, 2024, AWS removed the Animals from the Appellant’s care for failing to comply with an Order issued pursuant to s. 30(1) of the PAWS Act. The Order required the Appellant to provide the Animals with adequate feed, have them seen by a veterinarian (with special attention to body health, lethargy and poor quality of coat), and for the Appellant to follow all veterinary instructions. Further, the barn was to be cleared of remnants of deceased animals and debris.¹

10In particular, on November 14, 2024, AWS removed the Animals from the Appellant’s care and issued a Notice of Removal (“NOR”) pursuant to s. 31(1) of the PAWS Act for failing to comply with the requirements of the Order.²

11In November of 2024, a Notice of Decision to Keep an Animal(s) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (“DTK”) was issued in relation to the Animals pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act. The Appellant appealed the Order, the NOR and the DTK to the Board. On December 16 and 17, 2024, the appeals of the Order and the NOR were heard. The Board issued its decision on the Order and the NOR on February 11, 2025 which was cited during the current hearing by the Respondent (Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 125).

12In particular, the February 11, 2025 decision stated that the Board was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the sheep were in distress and that AWS acted within their authority to issue the Order. As such, the Order was confirmed. Further, the Board found that it was necessary to remove the sheep, pursuant to the NOR, to alleviate their distress. The appeal of the removal was therefore dismissed.

13On December 7, 2024, the Appellant appealed the DTK to the Board on the basis that she believed that the sheep had adequate, food, water, shelter and care.

14On January 15, 2025, a hearing of the appeal of the DTK proceeded before the Board, which was cited by the Respondent during this hearing. The Board issued its decision on that matter on March 13, 2025 (Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 135). The Board decided that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that it was necessary to keep the sheep in care to relieve their distress and had reasonable grounds to believe that the sheep may be placed in distress if they were returned to the Appellant at the time the DTK was made. The appeal of the DTK was dismissed and the Board declined to order the sheep be returned to the Appellant.

15Originally, at the hearing of the current SOA matter, the Appellant indicated she would not be challenging the reasonableness of the costs on the SOA. Accordingly, the Respondent was not going to call Inspector Lamb to testify. Subsequently, the Appellant decided that she would like an explanation regarding the reasonableness of the costs. Accordingly, the Respondent decided to call Inspector Lamb to testify. During Inspector Lamb’s testimony, she reviewed the SOA and provided details regarding the costs on the SOA. The Appellant did not cross examine Inspector Lamb.

ANALYSIS

The Law

16Pursuant to s. 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:

1. an inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress under s. 33;
2. an inspector has removed the animal under s. 31(1) or (2); or
3. the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept the animal in care or taken the animal into care.

17Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act explains that costs may include, among other things:

1. costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress;
2. costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care;
3. costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed;
4. costs of providing care for an animal that has been kept or taken into care.

18While the burden of proof in the 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.³

Evidence & Reasons

19Inspector Lamb testified on behalf of the Respondent. She recounted the events that led to AWS’ removal of the sheep, how the need for veterinary care and boarding arose, and what the veterinary care consisted of.

20Inspector Lamb also cited Ontario Regulation 444/19 of the PAWS Act, Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements (the “Regulation”). Section 3 of the Regulation sets out the basic standards of care for all animals including adequate food, water and medical attention. The Respondent argued that the basic standards of care were not met in this case and therefore the Regulation supports the costs in the SOA. In particular, the Respondent’s argument was that when the animals were in custody, the Respondent had to abide by the standards care and the SOA reflects the costs of doing so.

21I accept the Respondent’s evidence and find that the costs set out in the SOA are reasonable and they were supported by invoices including for the following: boarding, specialty feed, various veterinarian bills, medication as needed, vaccinations as needed, fecal testing, bloodwork as needed, examinations of sheep etc. Inspector Lamb testified that the costs were all typical costs in providing care for sheep and that all of the veterinary costs were recommended by a veterinarian.

22The conclusion that the costs set out in the SOA were reasonable was supported by Inspector Lamb’s breakdown regarding the charges and their reasonableness, as discussed further below. I also find that the types of services provided were necessary to keep the sheep 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.

23The Appellant did not make any arguments to the Board at the hearing disputing the reasonableness of the costs in the SOA, as supported by the accompanying invoices. In addition, the Appellant did not cross examine Inspector Lamb regarding the reasonableness of the SOA.

24As a result of Inspector Lamb’s evidence, which was not tested by the Appellant by way of cross examination at this hearing, I find that the Respondent has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the SOA reflected the actual costs of necessaries and that these costs were reasonable.

25With respect to boarding costs, the evidence was that the boarding costs at the foster farm where the sheep were boarded, Livelihood Farm, was $17.00 per sheep per day. Inspector Lamb explained that the boarding costs included bedding, hay, water, observations and all daily monitoring of the sheep.

26As noted above, a number of services were included in the boarding costs, including observations and all daily monitoring, which I find were very important given the health of the sheep. The boarding costs also included necessaries such as hay and water, which were important in keeping the sheep healthy. I find that all of these services were important given the state of the sheep. As a result, I find that the boarding costs were reasonable.

27I note that this Board made a similar finding regarding the reasonableness of the boarding costs in the March 2025 SOA Decision. In particular, the boarding costs of $17.00 per sheep per day were found to be reasonable in the March 25 SOA Decision and, as noted above, I also find that these costs were reasonable.

28With respect to the costs of specialty feed, Dr. Lamb stated that this feed was recommended by a veterinarian to get the sheep back to a healthy state. I find, based on Inspector Lamb’s evidence at this hearing, that it was reasonable to give the Animals specialty feed, as reflected in the SOA that was before me, as there were concerns about the sheep’s body weight. I also find, based on Dr. Lamb’s evidence, that the specialty feed was important to improve the sheep’s body condition. I find that the costs on the SOA related to specialty feed were reasonable.

29In addition, I note that the costs of specialty feed were found to be reasonable in the March 25 SOA Decision, as recommended by a veterinarian, because the sheep were suffering from emaciation. The March 25 SOA Decision stated that specialty feed is typically given to young lambs because it is nutritious and has large amounts of calories, carbohydrates and protein. I note the consistency between my decision regarding the reasonableness of providing the sheep with specialty feed and the March 24 SOA Decision regarding the reasonableness of the specialty feed.

30I find that the other costs in the SOA, which were undisputed at this hearing, were reasonable, including various veterinary bills for care recommended by a veterinarian, examinations, vaccinations etc. as they were important in monitoring the sheep and helping to improve their health.

31Having found that the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA should be revoked or varied. The Appellant sought to have the SOA revoked or varied based on financial hardship and inability to pay. For the reasons set out below, the Appellant’s evidence did not establish financial hardship warranting the revocation or reduction of the SOA.

32Counsel for the Respondent stated that although there was no disclosure made by the Appellant regarding inability to pay and that the Appellant did not mention inability to pay in the NOA, she was prepared to take the position that the Appellant could testify with respect to inability to pay and she would cross examine the Appellant on this issue. The caveat was that if there were any surprises in the Appellant’s evidence regarding inability to pay, she would need to take a break to prepare for cross examination of the Appellant. The Appellant did not object to this position and the Board accepted this position as fair and reasonable.

33Although the Appellant requested that the SOA be revoked or varied based on inability to pay, she did not provide any documentary evidence to support this request such as bank statements, pay stubs, proof of employment and/or proof of ownership of any property. She also gave very little evidence when she testified to support the position that she had limited ability to pay. She originally stated that she had no money at the end of the month after all of her bills and expenses and later stated that she only had a small amount of money at the end of the month after all of her bills and expenses. She also stated that her financial documents were not relevant as she made an oath to tell the truth in this hearing and has sworn under oath that she cannot afford to pay the SOA.

34I am not persuaded that the SOA should be revoked or varied. I am instead persuaded by the Respondent’s arguments and by the caselaw cited, that if the Appellant wished to seek a reduction or revocation in the amount of the SOA, it would have been of assistance if she had provided the Board with financial documents to support this position. The Respondent cited Adams v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 96 (“Adams”) in which the Board confirmed the statement of account at issue in that case. In Adams, the panel stated the following:

[37] The appellant requested that the SOA be revoked/varied but did not provide any evidence supporting her request.

[40] The appellant did not argue or file any evidence of her financial circumstances or lack of ability to pay.

35Although the panel in Adams did not state that financial evidence is required to persuade the panel that the appellant has an inability to pay, the panel did decline to revoke or vary the statement of account and, when doing so, they specifically noted the lack of filed evidence regarding inability to pay.

36Furthermore, even if there were circumstances where the Board might consider varying an SOA without supporting documentation, I do not find this to be one of them, as the Appellant provided no persuasive oral testimony regarding financial hardship and inability to pay. As noted, she stated that her financial documents were not relevant, arguing that she swore to tell the truth at the hearing which should have been sufficient. I find that the Appellant cannot not rely on an oath or affirmation at a hearing in place of evidence.

37I also accept the Respondent’s submissions that reducing or revoking the SOA in these circumstances would undermine the accountability aspect of the PAWS Act. In addition, I accept the Respondent’s submissions that paying statements of account is not a fine or a penalty, as these are real costs incurred by the government to provide necessaries and to meet the minimum standards of care under the PAWS Act and the Regulations. As a result, I decline to reduce the amount of the SOA or revoke the SOA based on alleged financial hardship or inability to pay, finding that the Appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence to support this position.

ORDER

38Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, I confirm the SOA and order that the Appellant pay $91,068.22 to the Minister of Finance.

Footnotes

1. 1Touchette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 16603.
2. 2Ibid.
3. 3Windrift Adventures Inc. v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501.