Appeal and Applications under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Lesley Ralston
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair
Appearances
For the Appellant: Lesley Ralston, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Alice Liu, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: August 15, 2025
OVERVIEW
1The Appellant, Lesley Ralston, owned 18 bulldogs and 4 spaniel type dogs (Dogs), that were removed from her property in York, Ontario (Property) on March 4, 2025, by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) due to non-compliance with a previous order.
2On March 26, 2025, AWS served the Appellant with a statement of account (SOA #1) for $38,779.58, issued under s. 35 of the PAWS Act, for costs incurred in caring for the Dogs. SOA #1 was appealed by the Appellant but is not the subject of this hearing.
3Another statement of account (SOA #2) was served on the Appellant on May 7, 2025, in the amount of $29,267.69 for additional care costs incurred March 27, 2025, and onwards.
4On May 7, 2025, the Appellant appealed SOA #2 to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) and on August 15 2025, the parties participated in a videoconference hearing of the appeal.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
5Should SOA #2 dated May 7, 2025 in the amount of $29,267.69 be confirmed, revoked, or varied?
RESULT
6The Board confirms SOA #2 and orders the Appellant to pay $28,907.69 to the Minister of Finance, which reflects a reduction of $330 by AWS.
ANALYSIS
Did the charges on SOA #2 reflect the actual costs of necessaries provided, and were they reasonable?
7Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act states that the Respondent, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, may serve an animal owner or custodian with a statement of account respecting costs incurred to relieve distress and provide necessaries.
8Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act provides a list of costs that may be recovered, including costs incurred to relieve an animal’s distress, an animal which has been removed pursuant to subsection 31(1) or (2), or an animal kept in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care pursuant to subsection 31(6).
9The Board places an initial evidentiary burden on the Respondent to show that the SOA reflects actual costs of care incurred in relation to the circumstances prescribed under subsection 35(1), and that the costs incurred were reasonable. The burden then shifts to the Appellant, who must prove on a balance of probabilities that there are reasons that justify varying or revoking the SOA.
10The Respondent called evidence from Inspector Shay DeWolfe, who testified regarding the circumstances of removal, as well as the invoices included in SOA #2.
11Inspector DeWolfe testified that on February 3, 2025, she was assigned to the case due to complaints that the Appellant was not following prescribed standards of care with respect to dogs that she was breeding and selling.
12Inspector DeWolfe testified that her and Inspector Winter attended the Property on February 4, 2025, and noticed unsanitary conditions and a lack of water available to the Dogs. She issued an order requiring specific conditions to be met for the size and cleanliness of crates, exercise for the dogs, cleaning the dogs, as well as constant access to potable water, beginning February 4, 2025 and continuing to July 1, 2025. Follow up inspections took place on February 11 and 27, 2025, but the conditions had not improved and veterinarian checks for five of the Dogs revealed poor body conditions. Due to this, the Dogs were removed on March 4, 2025, and pictures were taken of the Property conditions. The Appellant objected to viewing the pictures at the hearing as she claimed it brough back traumatic memories. The Board found that the Appellant did not need to view the pictures, but Inspector DeWolfe testified as to when they were taken.
13Inspector DeWolfe testified that the Dogs were taken for examination by a veterinarian named Dr. Ravi, who tested them for parasites and found that most of the Dogs were positive for Giardia, roundworms, and/or both. Several Dogs also had dermatitis, eye infections, severe dental disease, and other obstructions. The Dogs were provided with updated vaccinations, boosters, and antibiotics to treat the parasites. Inspector DeWolfe also testified that a Decision to Keep the Animals in Care (DTK) was rendered on March 11, 2025, pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act, due to concerns that returning the Dogs to the Appellant would place them in distress.
14Lastly, Inspector DeWolfe testified that the Dogs were all kept at a large boarding facility their following removal so they could be quarantined and treated together. She went over the boarding facility invoices, which showed a charge of $55 per night per animal, fees that she stated were comparable to other facilities. The Inspector testified that after some time, on April 17, 2025, the Appellant surrendered 20 of the Dogs, and the Appellant’s two remaining dogs were later sold and rehomed on or around April 25, 2025.
15According to Inspector DeWolfe, SOA #2 covered all remaining transportation ($150), veterinary ($187.69 for ongoing medication), boarding, and care costs ($1430 for bath, nail, ear cleaning post Giardia treatment, collars and ID tags) from March 27, 2025 up to the date of surrender. Boarding for all 22 dogs from March 27 to April 17, 2025 totaled $26,620 and for 2 dogs from April 18 to 25, 2025, cost $880. The Appellant submitted that the last two dogs were also surrendered on April 17, 2025, but according to the Respondent the Appellant had changed her mind about these two specific dogs and was working to send them to new homes so they remained at the boarding facility until April 25, 2025, when they were officially rehomed. Lastly, the Inspector stated that the charges on the final SOA #2 were reduced by $330 to exclude the cost for collars and ID Tags, so the total amount outstanding was actually $28,907.69.
16Inspector DeWolfe reviewed the veterinary records and invoices in detail and she testified that the fees charged were both necessary and reasonable based on her experience working at AWS. I was persuaded by her testimony. Of note, the Appellant did not object to any specific charges in the invoices captured under SOA #2. Based on this, I find that the fees covered under SOA #2 were reasonable, minus the $330 deduction agreed to by AWS, as they included the actual costs of treatment, care and boarding, and did not include costs incurred prior to March 27, 2025.
17The Appellant focused on the circumstances surrounding the removal of the Dogs and argued that she had intended to surrender them earlier, but there was a delay due to AWS’ counsel being on vacation. According to the Inspector’s notes, the forms to surrender the dogs were emailed to the Appellant on April 11, 2025, and on that same day, she advised that she would not be signing them and was working to rehome two of the Dogs. There are no notes detailing what occurred between April 11 and April 18, 2025 but based on the Inspector’s testimony, it is reasonable to conclude that a few days were needed to receive and process the forms. Additional paperwork would have been required for the two Dogs being rehomed, and there is no evidence indicating that the Appellant signed to surrender them on the same date as the other twenty. I therefore accept the Respondent’s position that twenty Dogs were surrendered on April 17, 2025, and the remaining two Dogs were surrendered on April 22, 2025.
18The Divisional Court has confirmed that while the burden of proof is on the Appellants to show that the SOA should be revoked or varied, the Respondent has an initial evidentiary burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA reflects the actual costs of necessaries and that these costs were reasonable: Windrift Adventures Inc. et al. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 43-51. Ultimately, the Board is satisfied that the Respondent has met its burden and I accept Inspector DeWolfe’s testimony that the charges were both reasonable and necessary in the circumstances minus the $330 for collars and ID tags. Furthermore, the Appellant provided no specific evidence or testimony to challenge the charges covered in the various invoices under SOA #2.
The Appellant’s Ability to Pay the SOA
19Having found that the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA should be revoked or varied.
20The Appellant testified that she could not afford to pay SOA #2, as she had no income following the removal of the Dogs. She submitted an Excel spreadsheet outlining her income and expenses; however, many listed expenses related to pet care, which were no longer applicable. Her testimony and the chart revealed several additional income sources, including rental income from her barn during the winter months, a pension, Old Age Security, and a survivor benefit. The Appellant stated that the spreadsheet had been prepared by her accountant and she could not speak in detail to many of the listed items. She also testified that she had significant debts which she was repaying monthly.
21The Respondent submitted that the Appellant failed to provide adequate evidence of financial hardship. No bank statements, pay stubs, notices of assessment, or other supporting financial documents were submitted to corroborate her claims. Under cross-examination, it was established that the Appellant owned her home outright and had no mortgage or rent obligations. She acknowledged that her current expenses were substantially lower, as she no longer had to care for the Dogs. She claimed her credit card bills still reflected past pet-related expenses, but provided no documentation to support this.
22After reviewing the submitted financial information, I find that the Appellant has provided insufficient evidence to establish financial hardship. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that she is unable to pay SOA #2.
23I further find that the costs incurred by AWS under SOA #2 for veterinary and boarding care were reasonable and necessary. I accept Inspector DeWolfe’s testimony that the fees were in line with industry standards. Also, since the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of an inability to pay, I am not persuaded that the SOA should be varied on the basis of financial difficulty.
ORDER
24Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, I confirm the SOA dated May 7, 2025, and order the Appellant to pay $28,907.69 to the Minister of Finance.
Released: October 6, 2025
Ziba Heydarian, Member