TRIBUNALS ONTARIO Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2025-08-24

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

Between:

Kalyssa Jordan

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Rocco Iamello, Member Paul Stopciati, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Kalyssa Jordan, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Adrien Iafrate, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: July 28, 2025

OVERVIEW

1On June 26 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to the appellant, Kalyssa Jordan, requiring her and her father, Ricardo Scotland, to pay $30,714.84 in veterinary costs related to the care of four animals named Big Momma, Tam Tam, Zena, and Blue. The SOA was issued under s. 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act).

2AWS removed three of the dogs (Big Momma, Tam Tam, Zena) from the appellant’s residence on June 17, 2025, after the Niagara Veterinary Emergency Clinic (NEVC) made a complaint to the AWS that the dogs required aggressive treatment in hospital. Another dog, named Blue, was removed on June 19, 2025, as the appellants had failed to comply with an order dated June 17, 2025, requiring the dog to be examined by a veterinarian.

3On June 29, 2025, the respondent issued a Decision to Keep Animals in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care, citing its concern that if the dogs were returned to the appellant, the dogs may be placed in distress. This decision was not before the Board.

4The appellant appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on the basis that she does not have the financial ability to pay it.

5The respondent, Chief Animal Welfare Inspector argues that the SOA reflects actual and reasonable costs incurred to provide necessaries to the four dogs and it seeks to have the SOA confirmed.

6For the reasons set out below, we find that the SOA reflects most of the costs of services provided, though we find some of these costs are not supported by evidence in the circumstances. However, we also recognize that the appellant has limited ability to pay, and on that basis, we vary the SOA to $13,729.58.

ISSUE

7Should the SOA dated June 26, 2025, in the amount of $30,714.84, be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

RESULT

8Pursuant to the powers of the Board in s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act), the Board varies the SOA and orders the appellant to pay the varied amount of $13,729.58 to the Minister of Finance.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act makes an animal owner responsible for costs incurred by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector in cases where an inspector has removed or taken an animal into care or has provided necessaries to relieve an animal’s distress.

10If an owner appeals a statement of account respecting these costs, the burden of proof is on the owner to show that the SOA should be revoked or varied. However, the respondent has an initial evidentiary burden to demonstrate that the SOA reflects the actual costs of necessaries and that these costs were reasonable.

11To that end, AWS Inspector Chelsea Der Nederlander testified for the respondent. She recounted the events that led to AWS’s involvement in this case and explained how the need for veterinary care arose. This evidence is outlined below.

12Sharron Nichols (Medical Manager Niagara Veterinarian Clinic) testified for the respondent stating that NEVC’s statement was consistent with the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association Fee Guide.

13The respondent did not review the SOA in its entirety to confirm and corroborate that the fees for each animal were necessary.

Events leading to the animals’ removal.

14AWS Inspector Der Nederlander attended the appellant’s residence to issue a Notice of Removal (NOR) for three dogs ‘on June 17, 2025, after AWS received a complaint from the NEVC about four dogs that were examined at the clinic on June 16, 2025. The NEVC had found the dogs to be ill, suffering from Parvovirus.

15The NOR describes three Pitbull/American Bully cross type puppies presenting lethargic behavior, pale gums, and low body condition. The three puppies are known as Big Mama, Tam-Tam, and Zena.

16On June 19, 2025, AWS Inspector William Nunn issued a further NOR for the dog named Blue, which was removed from the appellant’s residence pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act, for non-compliance with the order issued on June 18, 2025, for veterinary care.

Actions taken by the Appellant prior to the animals’ removal

17Prior to June 16,