Melissa Menzies v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 176

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 2025/08/11

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

Between:

Melissa Menzies Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Peter Simmons, Vice Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Melissa Menzies, self-represented

For the Respondent: Robert Winter, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) Erin MacGillivray, Counsel

Heard By Videoconference: July 22, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Mellissa Menzies (Appellant) appeals a Statement of Account (SOA) issued pursuant to section 35 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on June 10, 2025, for boarding and veterinary care provided to her dogs, Boogie (a bully-type) and Louis (a Jack Russell terrier), between May 30, 2025 and June 6, 2025.

2On May 30, 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) Inspector Marie Jordan (Inspector Jordan) responded to a call involving injured dogs at the property of the Appellant. The injured dogs were Boogie and Louis. Inspector Jordan testified that she was told that Boogie and Louis had been fighting with a third dog also owned by the Appellant that was not at the property and is not included as part of this proceeding.¹

3When Inspector Jordan arrived at the property, she observed Louis outside the home. He displayed deep neck wounds. After obtaining consent from the Appellant via phone to enter the home, Inspector Jordan observed Boogie in a bedroom where he had been confined due to aggressive behaviour. She observed him to be limping and saw wounds on his body.

4Inspector Jordan discussed by phone the conditions of both dogs with Dr. Bruce Robertson who subsequently issued a certificate advising that removal of the dogs was necessary to relieve their distress.

5Inspector Jordan removed the dogs pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act and took them to Springer Animal Hospital (SAH) where a veterinarian examined and assessed them. Louis was prescribed medication and antibiotic ointment for his wounds with instructions for a follow-up visit to SAH. In the evening of May 30, 2025, Inspector Jordan took Louis to a boarding facility.

6Boogie’s examination yielded more serious issues and the SAH veterinarian recommended euthanasia due to his poor condition which included poorly healed bone fractures, osteoarthritis, various wounds, and infections. The Appellant consented by phone to have Boogie euthanized, which was conducted immediately.

7On June 4, 2025, AWS issued a Notice of Decision to Keep pursuant to s. 31(6)(b)(i) and (7) of the PAWS Act for Louis citing ongoing medical care for his wounds.

8On June 10, 2025, AWS issued a statement of account (SOA) pursuant to s. 35 of the PAWS Act to the Appellant, requiring her to pay $2,228.04, for veterinary costs for both Louis and Boogie and boarding costs for Louis. The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on June 17, 2025.

9The Board held a case conference on June 30, 3035. The matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing on July 22, 2025.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

10The issue before me is whether the SOA in the amount of $2,228.04, should be confirmed, revoked, or varied.

RESULT

11For the reasons that follow, I vary the SOA from $2,228.04 to $2,079.49.

ANALYSIS

12The SOA pertains to costs incurred by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI or Respondent) for veterinary care for both Louis and Boogie on May 30, 2025, and boarding costs for Louis from May 30, 2025, to June 6, 2025, inclusive.

13Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act states that the CAWI may serve on an animal owner or custodian a statement of account respecting costs incurred where an animal welfare inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress under s. 33 of the PAWS Act.

14In this matter, the burden is on the Appellant to show that the SOA should be revoked or varied. The Respondent, however, has an initial evidentiary burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA reflects the actual costs of necessaries for Louis and Boogie and that these costs were reasonable.²

15The SOA shows separate lines for costs for veterinary care and boarding, each of which are dealt with separately in this decision.

Costs for veterinary services are varied

16The SOA includes costs totaling of $1,911.64 for veterinary care for both Louis and Boogie.

17Inspector Jordan testified that when she attended the Appellant’s property on May 30, 2025, she observed both dogs separately. She referred to photographs she took on May 30, 2025, that showed wounds and lacerations on the dogs. She testified that the injuries were severe and required professional medical attention. She discussed her observations by telephone with Dr. Bruce Robertson and subsequently removed the dogs based on Dr. Robertson’s certificate advising that removal was necessary to relieve the dogs’ distress.

18Inspector Jordan took both dogs to SAH on May 30, 2025. She stated that Louis’s wounds were cleaned at SAH and that he was provided antibiotics with instructions for a follow-up visit. She stated that Boogie’s assessment was more thorough because of his perceived condition and symptoms and included digital x-rays.

19Dr. Kyle Goldie testified that he was contacted by AWS to provide an expert opinion on the medical records for both Boogie and Louis, and on the charges in the invoices accompanying the SOA. He stated was not involved in the care of either dog.

20Dr. Goldie testified he compared the fees and charges on the invoice against those found in the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association 2025 Suggested Fee Guide – Small Animal Procedures (OVMA Guide) that is used by practitioners in the industry for guidance and is an accepted credible resource. He noted that some charges, such as medications and drugs, are not captured in the Guide and that in those situations, he relies on his 20 years of experience in the industry to inform his opinion.

21Dr. Goldie walked through the supporting invoice from SAH adding specific observations to certain fees and charges. He stated that the after-hours service for Louis included a comprehensive exam, topical wound care, and recommendations for home care. He did not provide an opinion on the appropriateness of the service because he did not examine Louis or observe the wounds first-hand. He stated the overall costs for Louis were otherwise reasonable.

22With respect to the charges for services provided to Boogie, Dr. Goldie explained that they were reasonable based on the notes and the assessment of the attending veterinarian. He stated that the charge for euthanasia is lower than the Guide rate, and is reasonable, and that the group cremation charge is reasonable despite it being higher than the Guide rate and is likely due to geographic (rural versus urban) disparities.

23Dr. Goldie testified that he did not have full information to determine the extent of digital x-rays to compare them to the rates in the Guide because of a technical issue at SAH. However, he believes the invoiced amount of $626.35 is reasonable because it falls within a range of quantified rates for images shown in the Guide, specifically between two images at $477.80 and five images at $715.30.

24I asked Dr. Goldie about the digital x-ray charges on the SOA because of the qualified information and documented ‘technical errors’ with the radiological system. Dr. Goldie stated that while the medical record indicates there were technical errors, he believes that at least two views (x-rays) of Boogie were taken based on the medical records, indicating findings on front and hind limbs, but the maximum number cannot be determined.

25I also asked Dr. Goldie about the office visit and exam fee and why it is higher than the recommended fee in the Guide given that the dogs were taken in during regular hours. He stated that because the veterinary services went into the evening and involved emergency service the higher fee is appropriate and not uncommon in the industry.

26The Appellant did not cross examine Dr. Goldie or question the rates for veterinary services, or fees in the supporting invoice from SAH.

27I find the testimony of Dr. Goldie to be reliable. His review of the medical records for both Boogie and Louis, and the cross referencing of the fees and charges to the Guide, are complete and thorough.

28I find the digital x-ray charges are not fully supported. The technical issues with the equipment as documented in SAH records provided no clarity as to the actual number of images taken of Boogie. I accept Dr. Goldie’s conclusion that at least two views were taken, however, the actual number is not known. What is more, the invoiced amount of $626.35 is not an amount found in the Guide that is tied a specific number of x-rays. The initial onus is on the Respondent to establish the actual costs and that they were reasonable, and I find that the Respondent has not met the onus regarding this amount, as there is no clear evidence regarding how many x-rays were taken, and whether or why that was reasonable and necessary.

29With the absence of actual image counts, I vary the x-ray charges from $626.35 to the Guide recommendation of $477.80, which accounts for at least two images and set-up costs.

30The veterinary services portion of the SOA is therefore varied from $1,911.64 to $1,763.09.

The boarding costs are confirmed

31Inspector Jordan testified that Louis was taken to a boarding facility because he required ongoing medical care and a follow-up appointment, and because the Appellant had not been providing proper care to the dogs following their altercation.

32Inspector Jordan explained that two boarding facilities were in the area, however only one was immediately available. She also explained that boarding facilities set their own rates, and AWS does not dictate or determine a boarding rate. She added that based on her experience the rate was reasonable and competitive to that of other facilities.

33The Appellant did not challenge the evidence concerning boarding rates or choice of facility.

34I find the Respondent’s choice of boarding facility was reasoned and rational. The $40/night is consistent with rates charged in the industry and previously accepted by the Board. The amount in the SOA of $316.40 accurately reflects a boarding fee of $40/night x 7 days plus HST.

Appellant’s ability to pay

35The Appellant stated that she has been Boogie’s owner since February 2025, and has no established relationship with a veterinarian for either dog.

36The Appellant testified that she is the sole income earner in the household and that her income is derived from part-time work averaging 30 hours per week with a local social services agency and the Ontario Disability Support Program. She also testified that her monthly gross income is approximately $3,600/month from the two sources combined, but she provided no documentary evidence to support this estimate.

37When she was asked about discretionary spending during cross examination, specifically horse-riding lessons for her daughter, the Appellant stated she pays approximately $355/month for this activity.

38I find the Appellant is not experiencing financial hardship since she has an otherwise regular source of income and has discretionary funds for family activities.

CONCLUSION

39The Respondent met their initial evidentiary burden and proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the costs shown in the SOA reflect the actual costs incurred by the Respondent for the care and services provided to Boogie and Louis, and that these costs were reasonable, except for the cost for digital x-rays, which was not fully supported by the evidence and has been reduced in the SOA.

40The Appellant led no evidence to prove why the SOA should be varied or revoked, other than her testimony regarding ability to pay, which I found unpersuasive.

41Having considered all the relevant evidence, I find that the costs in the SOA for boarding of $316.40 are reasonable, and the veterinary costs should be varied from $1,911.64 to $1,763.09. The revised total of the SOA is $2,079.49.

42The Appellant requested that she be allowed to pay any varied or confirmed amount of the SOA through a form of payment plan.

43The Board does not have authority to set, or order, any payment plans.

ORDER

44Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)(3.1) of the PAWS Act, I vary the SOA and order the costs of $2,079.49 be paid by the Appellant to the Minister of Finance.

Footnotes

1. 1The Appellant was on vacation on May 30, 2025 and had the third dog with her. Boogie and Louis were being cared for by friends of the Appellant.
2. 2See Windrift v. CAWI, 2023 ONSC 4501, para 76.