Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 09/10/2025

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

Between:

David Blair Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member For the Appellant: David Blair, Self-represented For the Respondent: Alice Liu, Counsel Held by Videoconference: July 15, 2025

BACKGROUND

1David Blair (Appellant) appeals a Decision to Keep in Care (DTK), dated May 31, 2025, which the Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) issued in respect to the Appellant’s dog, Parker.

2On February 18, 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) for Parker pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) and removed Parker from the Appellant’s care, citing health concerns and relying on a veterinarian’s certificate recommending removal to alleviate the dog’s distress. The NOR is not part of this proceeding.

3On March 31, 2025, the Respondent issued a DTK pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act for Parker because he required continued treatment and ongoing medical attention, including surgery.

4On April 20, 2025, the Appellant appealed the DTK to the Board stating that he is committed to Parker and will provide the necessary care following Parker’s surgery.

5The Board issued a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) on June 11, 2025, ordering this hearing to proceed to a videoconference hearing and the hearing took place on July 15, 2025.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

6The issues in dispute in this matter are:

a) Was it necessary for the Respondent to issue a decision to keep Parker in care to relieve his distress?

b) Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that Parker may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?

RESULT

7Based on the evidence before me, I find:

a) the Respondent had reasonable grounds to issue a decision to keep Parker in their care to relieve his distress; and

b) The CAWI had reasonable grounds to believe that Parker would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Was it necessary to keep Parker in care to relieve his distress?

8For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to keep Parker in their care to relieve his distress. I made this determination after considering the circumstances surrounding Parker’s removal and Parker’s health.

9On March 31, 2025, Regional Supervisor Brandon James (Delegate James), issued a DTK for Parker, stating it was necessary to keep him in the care of the Respondent to relieve him of distress, and that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Parker may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.

10Delegate James testified that after having reviewed Inspector Tamara Welch’s request for a DTK, including the Inspector’s notes and various medical records, he issued the DTK based on the following:

a) Issuance of a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animal(s);

b) The severity of the chronic ear infection in both ears and the need for a veterinarian specialist to examine and treat this painful condition;

c) The need for surgery to successfully resolve the very severe ear infection in both ears;

d) A reasonable belief that the Appellant would be unwilling or unable to provide necessary care, based on history of Appellant’s failing to properly care for and treat Parker’s continual ear infections over several years; and

e) A reasonable belief that the Appellant would not be able to be located if Parker was returned to him to ensure that any necessary veterinary medical procedures were performed, due to the Appellant’s having no fixed address or working phone.

11Section 31(6) of the PAWS Act permits the Respondent to decide to keep an animal that was removed under s. 31(1) in the Respondents care if:

a) the Respondent determines it is necessary to relieve the animal’s distress; or

b) the Respondent has reasonable grounds to believe that,

i. the animal may be placed in distress if returned to its owner or custodian; or

ii. the animal may be trained to fight another animal if returned to its owner or custodian.

12Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act as a state of being:

a) In need of proper care, water, food or shelter,

b) Injured, sick in pain or suffering, or

c) Abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.

13Further, Section 3 of the Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements Regulation, O.Reg.444/19 (Regulations), sets out basic standards of care for all animals. The Regulations state that every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate food and water, care for its general welfare, a proper resting and sleeping area, sanitary conditions, protection from the elements, and adequate space, light, and ventilation. In Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632, the Divisional Court found that “owners are required to comply with the minimum standards prescribed in the PAWS Act and the Regulation, and, if they do not, their animals are, by definition, in distress.”

Ear Conditions at time of Removal

14Inspector Tamara Welch testified that Toronto Animal Services (TAS) contacted her and informed her that they had a dog in one of their shelters which had been brought in by a member of Toronto Public Health on behalf of the owner. TAS further advised her that this dog had previously been in their shelter several times and they observed that it had severe ear infections that were getting progressively worse over time.

15Inspector Welch further testified that a veterinarian for TAS had issued a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animal(s) and that, upon receipt of this certificate, she removed Parker from the TAS shelter and transported him to the Royal York Animal Hospital for further assessment and treatment.

16Inspector Welch also testified that at the time of her picking up Parker from the TAS shelter, both of Parker’s ears had a brown smelly discharge coming from them and that the ear canals were swollen, and it was not possible to see into the ear canal.

17Inspector Welch testified that due to the severity of the ear infections, further testing and examinations by a specialist were required along with ongoing treatment.

18AWS Regional Veterinarian Dr. Bruce Robertson, D.V.M., testified regarding his expert veterinary opinion and stated that he had reviewed six different veterinary medical records for Parker. He concluded that Parker had a painful chronic ear infection in both ears that resulted in a permanent severe narrowing of the ear canals.

19Dr. Robertson also testified that due to the lengthy duration of the ear infection and the anatomic changes to the ear canals, medical management of the ear infections was no longer appropriate and that a surgical procedure was necessary to successfully treat the infection and relieve Parker’s medical distress. Dr. Robertson further testified that his surgical procedure was done on June 17, 2025.

20Dr. Robertson testified that he relied on the veterinary report of Dr. Porter, D.V.M., (whom he referred to as a specialist) of the Toronto Veterinary Emergency Hospital where Parker was examined and treated for the chronic ear infections.

21Dr. Robertson further testified that Dr. Porter’s conclusion was that surgical removal of both of Parker’s ear canals was necessary to properly treat the chronic ear infections. This was due to the narrowing of the ear canals that made it not possible for the application of other medical treatments, including liquid antibiotics.

22Dr. Robertson also testified that he concluded that the surgery was necessary to resolve the infections and alleviate Parker’s distress.

23The Appellant stated in his submissions that he cares very deeply for Parker and that he takes good care of him. He further testified that he did take Parker to see a veterinarian when he noticed Parker shaking his head and scratching.

24The Appellant further testified that Parker’s ear infections had been going on for 3 to 4 years and that he had cleaned Parker’s ears with a cleaning solution and applied antibiotic drops and believed that the infection had gone away.

25It is clear that the Appellant loves Parker, but I do not accept the Appellant’s claim of providing proper care for Parker to ensure his health, safety, and well-being. The Appellant provided no witnesses to corroborate his own assertions, nor has he provided any documentary evidence, such as recent veterinary records or invoices that show that Parker was receiving the necessary veterinary care for his chronic and severe ear infections.

26I am persuaded by the evidence from the Respondent’s witnesses, finding that it supports Delegate James’ determination that it was necessary to keep Parker in the CAWI’s care to relieve Parker of his distress due to the severe chronic ear infections.

Are there reasonable grounds to believe that Parker may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?

27For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that Parker may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant. I made this determination after considering the evidence with respect to the need for on-going medical care for Parker, the Appellant’s inability to provide this necessary care for Parker, and the inability of the AWS to easily locate the Appellant to monitor and ensure that Parker was receiving necessary care if Parker was returned to the Appellants.

Need for on-going medical care of Parker

28Delegate James testified that he made his determination to keep Parker in the CAWI’s care based on the Appellant’s inability to provide proper care for Parker’s ear infections along with concern of AWS not being able to find the Appellant to monitor and ensure that the necessary medical care and treatments for Parker were provided.

29Delegate James also testified that, at the time of his issuance of the DTK, it was his understanding that Parker would require ongoing care to help alleviate his pain while awaiting the surgical procedure that Dr. Porter had recommended. Parker would also need a significant amount of recovery time.

30Delegate James further testified that it was his belief that the costs of the successful surgical treatment of Parker would be $5000 - $10,000 based on his previous experience, and that the Appellant may not be able to afford these costs.

31Inspector Welch testified regarding the challenges that she encountered in arranging to meet with the Appellant after Parker came into the CAWI’s care and how she was reliant on a nurse from Toronto Public Health to locate the Appellant and arrange meetings between AWS and the Appellant.

32Dr. Robertson testified in support of the issuance of the DTK and Delegate James’ decision that returning Parker to the Appellant would place Parker in distress, including his expert opinion that Parker remained in distress and needed ongoing veterinary care while awaiting surgical treatment.

33Dr. Robertson testified that Parker had the required surgery on June 17, 2025, and that he required extensive post-surgery care and treatment until the infections are controlled and the surgical wounds have healed including antibiotics, suture and wound care.

34The Appellant testified that he has cared for Parker and that he would pay for whatever Parker needed. The Appellant further testified that he has unlimited love for Parker, not unlimited funds, and that he and his wife receive a monthly income of $3000.00 but that he has family members who can help provide money to pay for Parker’s care.

35I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s testimony of his willingness to pay for the necessary medical care for Parker including financial support from family members. There was no testimony or written submissions from any family members verifying their willingness and ability to provide the financial support the Appellant claims they would provide.

36The Appellant also testified that he knows he needs to look after Parker’s ears more, that he would, and that he has in the past taken Parker to veterinarians for treatments and that he does not neglect Parker. However, the Appellant was not able to provide any documented evidence to support these claims.

CONCLUSION

37In summary, I find that the Respondent has made persuasive arguments supported by uncontested evidence that it was necessary to keep Parker in its care to relieve his distress and that returning Parker to the Appellant would place him back in distress.

38I find that the Appellant’s arguments that Parker would not be placed in distress if returned to him were unpersuasive since he provided no corroborating evidence to support his claims of providing adequate veterinary care for Parker or his ability to financially afford the costs for the necessary and ongoing medical treatment of Parker.

ORDER

39Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I dismiss the appeal of the DTK and decline to order a return of the dog Parker.

Released: September 10, 2025

____________________________

Mark Sraga, Member