DECISION AND ORDER
Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Elisabeth Gordon and Jamie Meyerink Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
Adjudicator: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair
For the Appellant: Elisabeth Gordon, Self-represented Jamie Meyerink, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: July 21 and 22, 2025
BACKGROUND
1The Appellants, Elisabeth Gordon and Jamie Meyerink, are the owners of a juvenile bulldog named Rascal. On May 13, 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) removed Rascal pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), as a vet advised AWS that removal was necessary due to allegations that the owners had abused the dog.
2On May 26, 2025, the Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspectorissued a Notice of Decision to keep Animal(s) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (DTK) to the Appellants pursuant to s. 31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act on the basis that the dog may be placed into distress if returned to them.
3The Appellants appealed the DTK to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on July 24, 2025, and requested a return of their dog. The parties filed written closing submissions by July 29, 2025.
ISSUES
4Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that Rascal would be placed back into distress if returned to the Appellants at the time it issued the DTK?
5Should the Board order that Rascal be returned to the Appellants?
RESULT
6For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Rascal may be placed in distress if returned to the owner when it issued the DTK on May 26, 2025. I order that the Appellants’ dog, Rascal, be returned to them.
ANALYSIS
Legal Framework & Analysis
7Section 1 of the PAWS Act defines distress as the 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.
8Section 3 of O. Reg 444/19 (the Regulation) sets out basic standards of care for all animals. The Regulation 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, and protection from the elements, and adequate space, light, and ventilation.
9Owners of animals are required to comply with these standards. Failure to do so renders an animal “in distress” (Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632, para 52).
10Section 31(6) of the PAWS Act states that the Respondent may decide to keep an animal in care in two circumstances:
(a) the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector determines it is necessary to relieve the animal’s distress; or
(b) the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector 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.
11Section 38(9) of the PAWS Act empowers the Board to Order that an animal that was taken into care under section 31(6) be returned to the owner or custodian.
12AWS Regional Supervisor Carly Atrooshi issued the DTK on May 26, 2025, pursuant to section 31(6)(b) of the PAWS Act. Regional Supervisor Atrooshicited the following reasons in the DTK:
I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that if returned, the dog known as “Rascal” may be placed back into a state of distress due to the following: Witness statements which detail accounts of psychological abuse and physical abuse of the dog between March 2025 and May 2025; Environment which the dog lives in being tumultuous and chaotic with frequent visitors and possible drug use; Amount of hazards in the form of sharp objects, drug paraphernalia and items strewn around the apartment pose a risk for the dogs’ safety; Unstable living environment as eviction notice has been provided to MEYERINK to vacate premises.
13The Respondent’s position was that Rascal was in distress when the DTK was issued on May 26, 2025. The Respondent presented evidence from four witnesses: Inspector Brynne Howell, Regional Supervisor Carly Atrooshi, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) veterinarian Dr. Kyle Goldie, and the Appellants’ neighbour, Ms. Louise Lecompte.
14Inspector Howell testified that on May 10, 2025, she received reports from the Appellant’s neighbour, Ms. Lecompte, that there was a juvenile dog being physically abused. On May 12, 2025, Inspector Howell called Ms. Lecompte, who stated that she had moved into the building a few weeks ago and lived directly beside the Appellant, Mr. Meyerink. She informed the inspector that she and her friend had both heard the dog Rascal being abused. Ms. Lecompte testified about two specific incidents that led her to ultimately call AWS. She reported that on May 7, 2025, she observed a female, Ms. Gordon, kicking the dog in the yard. She also reported that on May 11, 2025, she heard the dog crying and then heard Mr. Meyerink yelling and tossing the dog out the back door.
15Inspector Howell then consulted with Regional Supervisor Atrooshi and Dr. Goldie regarding the allegations of abuse. Based on this discussion, Dr. Goldie signed a veterinarian certificate recommending removal of the animal to relieve it from distress under s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act.
16On May 13, 2025, Inspector Howell attended the Appellants’ residence, along with Inspector Renaud and two police officers, to follow up on the reports. She recounted that Mr. Meyerink answered the door and stated that he had never abused Rascal but would discipline him when he would not listen. During the hearing, Mr. Meyerink clarified that he would use treats to discipline his dog or send him to time out. He also testified that he had been having trouble with his neighbour, Ms. Lacompte, since she had moved in and that she would scream at him to stop “hitting” the dog, but he stated he would never hit the dog.
17Based on the information received from Ms. Lecompte and after consulting with Dr. Goldie, Inspector Howell proceeded to remove Rascal by issuing a Notice of Removal (NOR). Inspector Howell testified that upon removal, the dog appeared to have a good body composition score and had no apparent wounds, but he was taken to a veterinarian for examination.
18The veterinarian told the inspector that the examination did not show any signs of injury or past abuse. However, according to Dr. Goldie, the absence of physical evidence does not prove that abuse had not taken place.
19On May 22, 2052, after the removal, Inspector Howell and Senior Investigator Ryan Sparks attended Ms. Gordon’s residence to discuss the situation further. Inspector Howell testified that Ms. Gordon denied that she had ever kicked the dog as she was disabled and would be physically unable to do so. She also told the inspectors that she had never witnessed Mr. Meyerink abusing the dog, but when asked if he had ever been violent, she stated that “Jamie is Jamie.” In her testimony, Ms. Gordon denied this and stated that she was referring to Mr. Meyerink’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and did not intend to imply that he would ever hurt the dog.
20Following this, the inspectors attended Mr. Meyerink’s unit again. Inspector Howell testified that upon entering, she observed sharp items lying around and stated that Mr. Meyerink appeared to be “on drugs” when they were talking to him. Mr. Meyerink testified that he uses marijuana occasionally to treat his anxiety and PTSD after an incident where he was stabbed numerous times, which happened around five years ago. He stated that he co-owned the dog with his friend Ms. Gordon and that they both cared for the dog very deeply. He told the inspectors that he never physically abused his dog, nor had Ms. Gordon, but he said that he would sometimes raise his voice or send Rascal to his bed to discipline him. Mr. Meyerink testified that Rascal had given him a reason to get out of bed in the mornings, and that both he and Ms. Gordon relied on the dog as a support animal.
21The Appellants both testified that there had been ongoing disputes with the new neighbour, Ms. Lecompte, and that she had called the police several times for various reasons due to their dispute, but no charges were laid. Mr. Meyerink said that there had been a warning issued to him by his landlord due to a complaint made by Ms. Lacompte, but ultimately there was no eviction. He stated that a couple of days before the removal, Ms. Lacompte had come to his door and threatened to have Rascal taken away because he refused to let her take Rascal for a walk.
22The Appellants provided a statement from another neighbour, Mr. Countryman, who heard Ms. Lecompte threaten to have Rascal taken. This corroborates the Appellants’ position that the complaints were retaliatory, not based on genuine concern. I found this to be a critical piece of evidence, as it provides third party confirmation of a dispute between neighbours. Paired with the lack of physical signs of abuse, thiscasts doubt on the credibility of Ms. Lecompte’s claims, which form the basis of the removal and the decision to keep the dog in care.
23Mr. Meyerink and Ms. Gordon provided detailed and credible testimony that was consistent with one another. They denied any abuse and described Rascal’s daily care, including regular feeding, water changes, walks, and playtime. The Appellants testified that they had briefly rehomed Rascal with a farm owner to allow Mr. Meyerink to go back to work, but they later took him back as there were compatibility issues with another animal on the farm. Mr. Meyerink admitted to muzzling Rascal a few times for barking, but said it was rare and never abusive.
24Mr. Meyerink submitted that the investigation by AWS was very one sided as the inspectors never asked any of the other neighbours for statements on what was going on. The only evidence they relied on was Ms. Lecompte’s statement, which Mr. Meyerink said was a lie, due to their ongoing neighbour dispute.
25James Fraser and Rachel Daniels, friends of the Appellants, both testified that they believed Mr. Meyerink and Ms. Gordon were good animal owners and would never harm their dog. Mr. Fraser stated that he saw Mr. Meyerink walking and biking with Rascal daily, and that he had never seen the dog without food or water. Ms. Daniels testified that Ms. Gordon was a huge animal lover who often rescued animals in the neighborhood and that she would never hurt or kick Rascal. She also stated that Ms. Lecompte had lived across the street from them for around one year prior to moving into Mr. Meyerink’s building.
26The Appellants’ witnesses observed that the dog was kept clean, well fed, happy, watered, free of harm and was well cared for. There were no sign of abuse or mistreatment from their perspective. It was clear in cross-examination that the lay witnesses did not know all the rules regarding caring for animals, but their evidence demonstrated that the care provided to Rascal was well intentioned, consistent, and as good as they believed the Appellants could provide.
27The Respondent did not interview these individuals at the time of removal or prior to issuing the DTK, nor did it interview any other neighbours or witnesses. The sole basis for the removal and subsequent DTK seemed to be complaints by one neighbour, Ms. Lacompte. , and due to the ongoing unneighbourly behavior from both sides, I found these allegations lacked credibility.
Credibility Findings
28I find that Ms. Lecompte’s testimony lacked credibility, both due to internal inconsistencies and factors that undermine the reliability of her observations.
29First, her evidence was inconsistent and often contradictory. She initially denied ever living across the street from the Appellants, only to later admit that she had stayed temporarily with a friend in that location. She also claimed never to have spoken to Ms. Gordon, yet later acknowledged that they had interacted. These contradictions emerged under cross-examination and raised significant concerns about the accuracy of her overall account.
30Ms. Lecompte stated that she observed Ms. Gordon kick Rascal around 12:00 p.m. on May 7, 2025, but this was directly contradicted by Ms. Gordon’s evidence that she was working that day and it would not have been possible for her to attend the Appellants' residence before 4:00 p.m. due to her work schedule. Ms. Gordon’s testimony on this point was consistent and unchallenged.
31Furthermore, Ms. Lecompte alleged that Ms. Gordon kicked the dog while lifting it by the leash. However, Ms. Gordon uses a wheelchair and walker and stated that she would be physically unable to lift a dog of Rascal’s size. In response, Ms. Lecompte claimed that Rascal was just a small puppy at the time. Yet, veterinary records confirm that Rascal weighed 54 lbs on May 13, 2025, only days after the alleged incident, contradicting the assertion that he was small or easy to lift.
32Another key allegation was that on May 11, 2025 (Mother’s Day), Mr. Meyerink threw the dog outside while yelling. Both Appellants testified that they were not home that day, as they were visiting their mothers as part of an annual tradition. This defence was consistent and unrefuted, casting further doubt on the reliability of Ms. Lecompte’s evidence.
33Ms. Lecompte also admitted she wasn’t wearing her glasses during interactions involving Ms. Gordon and acknowledged that she could not be certain it was Ms. Gordon she had seen. This further undermines the reliability of her identification and overall account.
34Importantly, the Respondent provided no photos or videos to show the Appellants abusing their dog, and there were no physical signs of injury on Rascal when he was examined by the veterinarian following removal. While lack of injury does not prove abuse didn’t occur, it does weigh against Ms. Lecompte’s allegations, especially in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
35I also considered the broader context of a neighbour dispute between Ms. Lecompte and the Appellants. Both Mr. Meyerink and Ms. Gordon testified that tensions had risen shortly after Ms. Lecompte moved into the building. They described repeated arguments, the involvement of police, and even a landlord warning. Mr. Meyerink testified that a few days before Rascal was removed, Ms. Lecompte threatened to “have [his] dog taken away” after he refused to let her walk him. A separate neighbour, Mr. Countryman, provided a written statement corroborating this threat. I find this highly relevant, as it supports the view that Ms. Lecompte’s allegations may have been motivated by animosity rather than genuine concern for the dog’s welfare.
36Finally, Mr. Meyerink has lived in his unit for over five years with no prior complaints regarding his treatment of animals. Ms. Lecompte had only recently moved in when the complaints against the Appellants began. This, combined with the history of conflict, suggests that her observations may have been coloured by personal disputes, and therefore susceptible to exaggeration.
37For these reasons, I find that Ms. Lecompte’s testimony was not credible or reliable. Her allegations were not supported by other evidence, were contradicted by other witnesses, and appeared to arise in the context of an ongoing neighbour dispute. I accept the Appellants’ testimony as more credible and consistent with the evidence before me.
The Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to issue the DTK
38The basis for the DTK, Ms. Lecompte’s allegations, lacked independent corroboration, was inconsistent, and was contradicted by credible evidence from the Appellants and their witnesses. The Respondent did not interview any other neighbours or collect additional evidence. The entire DTK appears to have rested on the unsupported claims of a single witness whose account was not reliable.
39I also place limited weight on Dr. Goldie’s veterinary certificate. While I accept that veterinarians may provide opinions based on available reports, Dr. Goldie did not examine Rascal, visit the Appellants' residence, or speak to the Appellants directly. His opinion was based solely on notes provided by AWS, which made no direct observations of injury, fear, or distress, other than the allegations made by Ms. Lecompte. When asked whether there was any medical or physical evidence to support a finding of abuse, he confirmed there was none. Although I accept that abuse may occur without leaving physical signs, in this case, there is a complete lack of reliable evidence to support that abuse occurred at all.
40The Appellants gave detailed, consistent, and credible testimony about Rascal's daily care, including feeding, exercise, and training. Mr. Meyerink and Ms. Gordon both described routines that reflected genuine concern for the dog’s welfare, and their accounts were not challenged in cross-examination. This evidence was further corroborated by their witnesses, including friends and a neighbor, who all consistently confirmed that Rascal appeared healthy, clean, and well-cared for, with no signs of abuse. While lay witnesses may not fully understand all care standards, their consistent observations aligned with the requirements under the PAWS Act and the Regulation.
41I accept the Appellants’ evidence and find that there is no evidence to suggest that Rascal was in distress as defined under section 1 of the PAWS Act, at the time of removal. Furthermore, I find that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds on May 26, 2025, to believe that Rascal would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellants. The evidence provided by the Respondent, namely the uncorroborated statement of Ms. Lecompte, was insufficient to meet the statutory requirements in section 31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act
42The Appellants have met their burden of proof on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate that Rascal was not harmed or neglected and was receiving care in accordance with prescribed standards of care.
ORDER
43Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the Act:
I find that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to issue the DTK and keep the Appellants’ dog Rascal in its care pursuant to section 31(6) of the PAWS Act; and
I order that Rascal be returned to the Appellants.
Released: September 16, 2025
Ziba Heydarian, Vice Chair