Tribunals ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Dawn Walker
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Order Made By: Debra Backstein, Member
For the Appellant: Dawn Walker, self-represented
For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel
Heard By Videoconference: May 21, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Dawn Walker (Appellant), is the owner of four dogs, one bird, one bearded dragon and two ball python snakes (the animals), who live in her residence in London, Ontario (the unit).
2This matter involves an appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) totaling $11,245.09, which was served on the Appellant on March 28, 2025, by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).
3On February 10, 2025, AWS removed the animals from the Appellant’s care and issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act), noting that a veterinarian had advised AWS in writing that removal was necessary to relieve the animals’ distress.
4On February 21, 2025, a Notice of Decision to Keep an Animal(s) (DTK) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care was issued in relation to the animals pursuant to section 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
5Neither the NOR or the DTK were appealed; however, the animals have since been returned to the Appellant.
6The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on April 4, 2025. A case conference was held on April 22, 2025. The matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing on May 21, 2025.
ISSUE
7The issue to be decided is:
- Should the SOA be confirmed, revoked or varied?
RESULT
8For the reasons that follow, the Board:
- Confirms the SOA in the amount of $11,245.09.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
9According to Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI/Respondent) may serve on an animal owner or custodian a statement of account in circumstances where:
An AWS inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress by providing it with necessaries;
An AWS inspector has removed the animal under s. 31(1) or (2); or
CAWI has kept the animal in its care under s. 31(6) or taken the animal into care under s. 44(8).
10Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act states 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; and
Costs of taking any prescribed action in relation to an animal.
11Section 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 of the Board pursuant to s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act.
Should the SOA be confirmed, revoked or varied?
12The Board notes that the SOA was properly served on the Appellant in accordance with s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act which allows the Respondent to serve on an owner or custodian of an animal(s) a statement of account for any costs incurred in relation to the animal(s) if the costs were incurred in relation to an animal that has been removed by AWS and is kept in the Respondent’s care.
13The SOA includes the boarding costs from the boarding facility, Animal Care Centre Lobo ($45.00 per dog for 4 dogs for 30 days, $10.00 per day for 30 days for 1 budgie, as well as $10.00 per day for 30 days for each of the 3 reptiles), and veterinary costs for all the animals (exams and diagnostic treatments in the amount of $3,787.09). The total costs listed on the SOA were in the amount of $11,245.09.
14The SOA was supported by the detailed medical records of London Integrative Veterinary Services and Palumbo Mobile Veterinary Services, which outlined the treatment that the animals were provided. The treatment included but was not limited to examinations of the 4 dogs, bloodwork, fecal exams, vaccinations, as well as ear cleaning of 2 of the dogs. In addition, the SOA included the veterinary costs associated with examinations of the 3 reptiles and bird. A detailed invoice was provided outlining the treatment that was provided.
15Inspector Sheri Horan appeared as a witness on behalf of the Respondent. Most of her testimony related to the reasons for the removal of the animals and the conditions of the Appellant’s residence that required improvement before the animals could be returned.
16Inspector Horan testified that she was involved in the initial attendance at the unit on February 8, 2025, as there were concerns that the animals were abandoned in the unit in a state of distress. She posted a “while you were out” card to advise the Appellant that she had attended the unit and that the Appellant should contact her. Inspector Horan testified that she could hear dogs barking and could see one dog through the window and therefore knew there were animals inside the unit.
17It was Inspector Horan’s understanding that there was information that the Appellant may have been evicted from the residence and could not be located.
18Inspector Horan testified that AWS had not been contacted by the Appellant for “several days”. As a result, on February 10, 2025, Senior Investigator Alyssa Hobden, attended the unit in follow up and, removed the animals pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act) noting that a veterinarian had advised AWS in writing that removal was necessary to relieve the animals’ distress due to a general lack of food and water, unsanitary conditions, hazardous conditions and no responsible caretaker present.
19Inspector Horan testified that she next attended the unit on February 12, 2025, with London Housing to look for a cat who was thought to have been left in the unit. Inspector Horan provided evidence that the residence was in “deplorable conditions” as the unit was littered with feces and garbage. The basement was full of personal belongings that “made it impossible to see if there was a cat there”. Inspector Horan also noted that the floors and mattresses in the bedrooms were covered in feces.
20Inspector Horan noted that the Appellant contacted her for the first time on February 14, 2025. She spoke next to the Appellant on February 18, 2025, and indicated that AWS was still working on the case and on February 22, 2025, the Appellant was sent a copy of the DTK.
21Although he did not appear as a witness, Dr. J. Bruce Robertson, DVM, an AWS veterinarian, provided an expert report dated May 7, 2025. In this report, Dr. Robertson indicated that he analyzed the fees charged on the SOA and compared them to the fees that could have been charged using the 2025 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) fee guide. Dr. Robertson noted that fees charged by the London Integrative Veterinary Services and Palumbo Mobile Veterinary Services were lower than those of the suggested pricing by the OVMA.
22Dr. Robertson also noted that the care given by London Integrative Veterinary Services and Palumbo Mobile Veterinary Services was reasonable as it included initial examinations in order to establish the baseline health of the animals following removal, diagnostic testing, administering basic vaccines and parasite control as well as diagnosis of any issues.
23The Appellant testified on her own behalf but did not file any documents to substantiate her oral evidence. She stated that the reason she had initially left the animals alone at her home was because she was staying in a shelter. She stated that she had arranged for neighbours to care for the animals but that there had been a misunderstanding and these plans had fallen through.
24The Appellant testified that she felt that the return of the animals had taken too long, thereby increasing the number of boarding days she was required to pay for.
25In contrast to this evidence, a series of emails filed by the Respondent showed that the delay was in fact at the request of the Appellant so that she had more time to clean the unit and meet other requirements for the animals’ return.
26The Appellant made no arguments taking issue with the daily rates she was charged for the boarding.
27The Appellant testified as to an inability to pay the SOA. It was her evidence that her only sources of income were a child tax benefit of $1,331.00 per month and an anticipated upcoming monthly payment from Ontario Works but she was unsure of the amount she would be receiving.
28It was the Appellant’s evidence that her expenses included back pay of rent, which meant that she was obligated to pay $210.00 on the 20th of every month in addition to the $200.00 she pays to Ontario Housing in rent. She estimated that she owed approximately $1,500.00 in back pay of rent.
CONCLUSION
29I 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 justified and reasonable. It was the Appellant’s failure to arrange care for the animals in her absence, the state of the unit upon her return and the time it took her to make the required changes, which necessitated the incurrence of these costs.
30The Board is satisfied that the veterinary care was necessary to relieve the animals of their distress. Examinations and tests to establish a baseline of health of the animals was reasonable and necessary given that it was a full 4 days after removal that the Appellant first contacted AWS and therefore no information on the animals could be known without these examinations and tests. In fact, the work done identified that the 4 dogs were infected by roundworm and 2 of the dogs were suffering from ear infections which would have gone untreated but for these tests.
31The Board finds that it is unable to make a finding regarding inability to pay. The Board was provided with no documentary evidence to substantiate how much money the Appellant has left over on a monthly basis, considering income, savings, and expenses. The Appellant could have provided copies of income tax returns, written confirmation of her rent debt, rent receipts, or a summary of expenses for herself and the animals.
32The Board finds that the Appellant’s oral evidence was insufficient to substantiate her claim of an inability to pay, or that the SOA was unreasonable or excessive.
33The Appellant did not meet her burden to prove why the SOA should be varied or revoked.
34The Board does not have the authority to order a payment plan. The Appellant can approach the Respondent regarding this request pursuant to s.35(5) of the PAWS Act within 15 business days of the release of this decision.
ORDER
35Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board confirms the SOA in the amount of $11,245.09.
Released: July 16, 2025
_______________________
Debra Backstein, Member