Carl Hanna v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 184

Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2025-10-17

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

Between:

Carl Hanna

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Debra Backstein, Member

For the Appellant: Carl Hanna, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel

Heard By Videoconference: August 20, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Animal Welfare Services (AWS) issued a SOA dated June 25, 2025 to the appellant, Carl Hanna, requiring him to pay $7,142.84 in boarding costs and veterinary costs related to the care of his 14 dogs.

2The appellant’s dogs were removed from his care after he failed to comply with an order requiring him to provide them with access to potable water at all times, bedding that they would not ingest and safe enclosures.

3The appellant appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) and sought to have it revoked on the basis that the veterinary and boarding charges were excessive and unnecessary. In the alternative, he seeks a reduction of the SOA based on the financial strain associated with caring for fourteen dogs.

4The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI or respondent) argues that the SOA reflects actual and reasonable costs incurred for veterinary care and boarding for the dogs and seeks to have the SOA confirmed.

PROCEDURAL MATTER

5The appellant had also appealed the decision to remove his dogs and filed an Application for Return of his dogs. These matters were assigned Board file numbers 17344/ACRB and 17333/ACRB respectively.

6At the outset of the hearing, I was advised that the parties resolved these two matters and, therefore, they were withdrawn in advance of the hearing.

7As a result of the information provided to me by the parties, I order these two files be closed (17344/ACRB and 17333/ACRB) and this proceeding, therefore, only concerns File No. 17345/ACRB, an appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA).

ISSUE

8Should the SOA dated June 25, 2025, be confirmed, revoked or varied?

RESULT

9For the reasons set out below, and pursuant to the powers in s. 38(9)3.1 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act), the Board varies the SOA and orders the appellant to pay $7,086.34 to the Minister of Finance.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10According to subsection 35(1) of the PAWS Act, the CAWI may serve on an animal owner or custodian a statement of account for costs incurred in relation to the animal in circumstances where:

1. An inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress;
2. An inspector has removed the animal under s. 31(1) or (2) of the PAWS Act; or
3. CAWI has kept the animal in its care under s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act or taken the animal into CAWI’s care under s. 44(8) of the PAWS Act.

11Subsection 35(2) of the PAWS Act states that costs may include, among other things:

1. Costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress;
2. Costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care;
3. Costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed;
4. Costs of providing care for an animal that the CAWI has kept or taken into care; and
5. Costs of taking any prescribed action in relation to the animal.

12Subsection 35(3) of the PAWS Act states that an animal’s owner or custodian is liable for the amount set out in a statement of account subject to an order of the Board pursuant to s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act.

13If an owner appeals a statement of account, the burden of proof is on the owner to show that, on a balance of probabilities, the statement of account should be revoked or varied. However, the respondent has an initial evidentiary burden to show that the SOA reflects the actual costs of necessaries and that these costs were reasonable.

The Evidence of Lori Lamb, AWS Inspector

14Inspector Lori Lamb testified for the respondent and recounted the events that led to AWS’s involvement in this matter and why there was a need for veterinary care and boarding services for the dogs.

15Inspector Lamb testified that she attended the appellant’s residence on May 6, 2025, after AWS received a complaint regarding the conditions that the dogs were kept in.

16Upon her initial inspection she observed the dogs confined in wire crates, with several crates holding multiple dogs. She noted that some of the crates lacked bottoms, none had bedding, and no water was readily available to the dogs. She described the residence as overwhelmingly noisy, with a strong and unpleasant odour.

17On May 7, 2025, she issued an order requiring the appellant to provide the dogs with potable water at all times, safe crate bottoms and appropriate bedding by May 14, 2025.

18Follow up inspections on May 28, 2025, and June 17, 2025, found continued non-compliance and as such, the dogs were removed under s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act.

19Following their removal, the dogs were taken to St. Lawrence Veterinary Services for examination and then to Country Paws Boarding.

20Inspector Lamb noted that the boarding costs on the SOA were for 1 day, totaling $1084.80. The facility charged $65.00 plus tax per day for 12 of the dogs and $90.00 plus tax per day for 2 dogs that were classified by the boarding facility as not housebroken and were therefore considered more taxing to care for. They would require more staff time, additional bedding changes and enhanced cleaning of their kennels for the purpose of sanitation

21The boarding for all the dogs included food, water, cleaning and medication administration.

22When cross examined on the issue of the extra charge for two of the dogs by the appellant, Inspector Lamb stated that this extra charge was not determined by AWS – it was imposed by the boarding facility and AWS had accepted this extra cost as reasonable and necessary for the dogs that were not housebroken. Inspector Lamb acknowledged that the boarding facility has since eliminated this extra charge policy, but it was in place at the time the dogs were with the facility.

23The appellant also questioned Inspector Lamb as to why AWS had not contacted Dr. Luff for the medical history of the dogs. Inspector Lamb acknowledged that the appellant had provided the contact information of Dr. Luff, but that AWS felt that the dogs were in distress and therefore proceeded immediately with veterinary examinations.

The Evidence of Dr. Daina Rumble, Veterinarian, St. Lawrence Veterinary Services

24Dr. Rumble provided testimony on behalf of the respondent and was the attending veterinarian who had examined and treated the dogs following their removal.

25She stated that AWS requested that each of the dogs receive a full physical examination, core and non-core vaccinations, and routine preventative care including deworming, fecal testing, and heartworm/tick disease screening.

26Dr. Rumble testified that three fecal samples were collected from the dogs and one of the samples had tested positive for Giardia. She testified that she had presented a variety of treatment options to AWS including treatment for all the dogs due to the high risk of transmission amongst dogs that had been housed together in close and unsanitary quarters. AWS selected treatment of all fourteen dogs as the most appropriate course of action to prevent further infection. The treatment consisted of five days of fenbendazole administered at the boarding facility under veterinary supervision.

27She testified that the overall veterinary costs charged by St. Lawrence Veterinary Services were, in most cases, below the rates recommended by the 2025 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association Fee Guide (OVMA Fee Guide). For example, she stated that St. Lawrence Veterinary Services charged $65.00 for a fecal test, while the OVMA recommended $90.00 for these tests. Further, she stated that heart worm and tick screening were billed at $88.00 while the OVMA Fee Guide recommended $125.00 for these services.

28During cross-examination, the appellant asked Dr. Rumble why Dr. Luff had not been contacted before she undertook examinations and treatments. Dr. Rumble advised that she had not been provided with Dr. Luff’s contact information and that she felt that the dogs had immediate health issues that needed be treated without delay. She stated that the scope of the vaccinations and tests were required under the Public Health Agency and the College of Veterinarians of Ontario guidelines and were therefore justified and reasonable.

29Dr. Rumble testified that the treatment of all of the dogs for Giardia was consistent with veterinary practices in environments with multiple dogs in shared living quarters.

The Appellant’s Evidence

30Although the respondent raised the issue of the appellant not filing a witness statement, he testified on his own behalf to ensure that the Board had a complete understanding of his position and to ensure procedural fairness.

31The appellant did not dispute that the SOA reflected accurate boarding and veterinary costs but challenged the necessity of those costs.

32He stated that prior to the removal of the dogs, he had provided Inspector Lamb with the contact information for Dr. Rick Luff, of Kingston Veterinary Clinic, who was the dogs’ primary veterinarian. He asked Inspector Lamb to contact Dr. Luff so that Inspector Lamb would be aware of the medical history of the dogs to ensure that there was no duplication in the treatment that the dogs were to receive while in the care of AWS.

33He testified that Inspector Lamb did not contact Dr. Luff and her failure to do so resulted in unnecessary costs as certain vaccines and treatments would have been repeated by Dr. Rumble. He did not specify which vaccines or treatments were repeated.

34He stated that it was unreasonable be charged an extra fee by the boarding facility for dogs they classified as not housebroken. He stated that all the dogs were accustomed to living indoors and were in fact housebroken. Any accident the dogs had upon their intake to the facility was due to the stressful circumstances and unfamiliarity with their surroundings and not a lack of training.

The Statement of Account

35The SOA was issued on June 25, 2025, for a total of $7,142.84, and outlined the following costs:

1. Boarding costs of $1,084.80 and
2. Veterinary costs of $6,058.04.

Does the SOA reflect actual costs for providing necessaries to the dogs and were the costs reasonable

Boarding Costs

36I am satisfied that the SOA reflects the actual costs incurred for the one day that the dogs were in care and those costs are supported by the invoice. The appellant did not dispute that the SOA reflected accurate boarding costs; he strictly challenged the necessity of those costs.

37I find that boarding costs were necessary to provide them with basic services while in the CAWI’s care, including food, water, medication administration and kenneling.

38I find that the appellant has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that certain charges were unreasonable.

39I find the rate of $65.00 per dog per day to be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances to care for, feed, and administer medication to the dogs. However, the additional $25.00 surcharge for the two dogs that were classified as not housebroken was not reasonable, particularly as the boarding facility has since discontinued this policy as confirmed by the evidence of Inspector Lamb. Given that the boarding facility no longer finds it necessary to charge extra to board dogs that are not housebroken, I find it was not necessary at the time to charge them the extra fees. As such, the SOA is varied to reflect a standard boarding charge of $65.00 plus tax for all 14 dogs, totaling $1028.30 (inclusive of tax) instead of $1084.80 (inclusive of tax).

Veterinary Care Costs

40I am satisfied that the SOA reflects the actual cost of the examinations, vaccinations and routine preventative measures conducted on the dogs. The appellant did not dispute that the SOA reflected accurate veterinary costs; he strictly challenged the necessity of those costs.

41I find that respondent has met their initial evidentiary burden that the costs incurred were reasonable given the dogs’ prior living conditions and given what AWS and Dr. Rumble knew at the time of treatment.

42I accept the respondent’s evidence and I am satisfied that the various treatments were necessary and standard practice, and that the blanket Giardia treatment was necessary for all 14 dogs given the highly contagious nature of the infection and the shared living conditions of the dogs prior to their removal. The appellant did not provide any specific evidence to challenge this argument and I accept the respondent’s evidence on this point.

43I accept that the veterinary fees were reasonably priced as they were generally below those recommended by the OVMA Fee Guide. The appellant provided no testimony or evidence that would indicate otherwise.

44The appellant’s main argument is that had the inspector or veterinarian contacted Dr. Luff, they would have known more about the dogs’ medical history and would have found that the veterinary services duplicated prior care or vaccinations and were therefore unnecessary. He did not provide any testimony identifying specific vaccines, examinations or treatments that he believed were duplicated.

45I find it difficult to assess whether some of the veterinary costs could have been avoided had AWS contacted Dr. Luff. While it is clear that AWS made no attempts to contact Dr. Luff prior to authorizing examinations, vaccinations and treatments, the appellant filed no corroborating records or statements to verify his assertion of overlap. The appellant did not file any letters, reports, or records of Dr. Luff or from the Kingston Veterinary Clinic (where Dr. Luff works) or call Dr. Luff to testify. He also did not file a vaccination or treatment history for the dogs.

46I therefore find that the appellant has not met his burden of providing, on a balance of probabilities, that the veterinary care costs were unreasonable, unnecessary, or excessive in the circumstances.

47The Board varies the SOA and orders the appellant to pay $7,086.34 to the Minister of Finance, broken down as follows:

1. Boarding costs: $1,028.30
2. Veterinary costs: $6058.04
3. Total after reductions: $7,086.34

ORDER

48Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, the Board varies the SOA dated June 25, 2025, and orders the appellant to pay $7,086.34 to the Minister of Finance.

49Board file numbers 17344/ACRB and 17333/ACRB are closed.

Released: October 17, 2025

_________________________

Debra Backstein, Member