Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Sabrina Brilliant
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
For the Appellant: Did not attend
For the Respondent: Victoria Crocker, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services
Adrien Iafrate, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: September 22, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Sabrina Brilliant (Appellant) appeals a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $4,162.96 to the Animal Care Review Board (Board). The SOA was issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on August 21, 2025.
2The Appellant is the owner of two adult dogs, four puppies, and one cat (collectively, the animals) that live with her at her trailer residence (the premises). On July 2, 2025, AWS Inspector Linsey Hay issued an Order to the Appellant pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), requiring the Appellant to:
Have her two adult cats examined by a veterinarian for numerous identified health concerns;
Provide an “environment free of debris and hazardous materials;” and
Provide “adequate and continuous access to palatable water for all dogs in dwelling.”
3The Appellant was provided until July 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. to comply with the Order. The compliance date was later extended orally by Inspector Hay to July 24, 2025.
4On July 25, and again on July 28, 2025, Inspector Hay attended the premises for a compliance check of the Order but did not gain access as the Appellant was not home. Inspector Hay sent a Notice of Non-Compliance to the Appellant by e-mail.
5On July 31, 2025, Inspector Hay and police from South Simcoe Police attended the premises with a Distress Warrant. On that date, Inspector Hay found the Appellant outside the premises with the dogs. Inspector Hay removed all six dogs and issued a Notice of Removal to the Appellant regarding the dogs. Inspector Hay explained that removal was made pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act because the Appellant had not complied with the Order.
6Also on July 31, 2025, Inspector Hay observed a cat at the premises living in conditions which she believed caused the cat distress. Inspector Hay contacted AWS Veterinarian, Dr. Kyle Goldie and described the conditions causing distress. Dr. Goldie issued a Certificate of Veterinarian advising that removal of the cat was necessary to relieve its distress. Inspector Hay removed the cat and issued a Notice of Removal pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act based on the Certificate of Veterinarian.
7On August 21, 2025, AWS issued a SOA pursuant to s. 35 of the PAWS Act in the amount of $4,162.96 for veterinary and boarding costs incurred for caring for the animals.
8A videoconference hearing was scheduled for September 22, 2025, on consent of the parties.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
9The issue before the Board is:
- Should the SOA be confirmed, varied, or revoked?
RESULT
10The August 21, 2025, Statement of Account in the amount of $4,162.96, is confirmed. The costs shall be paid by the Appellant to the Minister of Finance.
PROCEDURAL AND PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Proceeding with the Hearing in the Absence of the Appellant
11For the reasons that follow I find it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Appellant.
12The Appellant emailed the Board several times on September 12, 2025. In one of these emails, she advised that previously she had had to cancel a cardiologist appointment when she took the dogs to a veterinarian. She mentioned that the appointment would be rescheduled for some time in September, but she did not know the date. She advised that she would not miss another cardiologist appointment, and would therefore not attend the hearing. Her email stated the following:
I miss[ed] my cardiologist appointment because of this on on [sic] The date that I had to take the kids the pets the vet cancelled my cardiologist my health appointment to make sure that I didn’t lose my dogs. My health is more important than my dogs, but I chose my dog[s] so I didn’t lose them. I’m also gonna get a letter from my cardiologist saying that that appointment is was charged because I cancelled it too late and I’m gonna be going after you guys for the cost[.] I also have a cardiologist appointment coming up to September. I don’t know what date but I’m not cancelling my appointment so if it happens to be on one of those days that the courts on I’m not attending I’m informing you now. I will get my doctor to inform you. I am not missing another cardiologist appointment because you guys are continuously dragging this cost for all these people for f*** no reason.
13On September 15, 2025, the Appellant emailed the Board, advising that she was not available for the hearing scheduled for September 22, 2025, because she had a cardiologist appointment that day. She submitted a screen shot from her phone showing a doctor had confirmed an appointment for 2:00 p.m. on September 22, 2025, using an online booking system. At the same time, she also advised that she was unavailable for the alternate hearing date of September 23, 2025, because she had now scheduled veterinary appointments for two of her animals on that date. She also submitted a screen shot from her phone showing the veterinary clinic had confirmed two appointments on September 23, 2025.
14The Board advised the Appellant to submit an adjournment request on a Request for Adjournment Form, and that her request could not be processed otherwise. When she did not file an Adjournment Form, the Appellant was advised by the Board to attend the hearing and orally request an adjournment.
15Rule 16.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended (Rules) requires that a request for an adjournment of a case conference or hearing must be in writing, be served on the other party, and include:
a) The reason for the request;
b) Written agreement to the adjournment from the other parties or their representatives, if given; and
c) At least three alternative dates, within 30 days of the hearing date to be adjourned, that are agreeable to all parties.
16Adjournment Request Forms are available on the Board website and may be completed electronically and submitted to the Board. The Form indicates that submissions and evidence in support of a Request must be served on the other party.
17When the hearing commenced at 9:30 a.m. on September 22, 2025, the Appellant was not in attendance. The case management officer called he r, and the Appellant advised that she was driving to her medical appointment. The Appellant said she would try to call into the hearing and was given the call-in details. She tried calling into the hearing, but the call was terminated when she could not unmute herself. In a follow-up call with the case management officer, she advised that she was unable to press the correct buttons on her phone to unmute herself because she was driving.
18I asked the Respondent for submissions regarding adjourning the hearing because the Appellant was unable to attend. The Respondent submitted that it opposed the adjournment request on the basis that the parties had consented to the hearing date at the case conference and the Appellant had not presented him with the Request for Adjournment Form. If she had, he would have requested the matter proceed until the scheduled medical appointment at 2:00 p.m. Counsel also noted that he had already arranged for his witnesses, and that there was no information that she would be unavailable at 9:30 a.m.
19At 10:00 a.m. I decided to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant’s absence, having given her 30 minutes to attend, and after several calls from the Board’s case management officer to provide her assistance. I noted that the Appellant had consented to the hearing date during the case conference, and she had received the Notice of Hearing on September 12, 2025, and had not filed a Request for Adjournment. I note as well that the Appellant did not indicate previously any technical issues which would prevent her from participating in the videoconference hearing format.
20I decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Appellant because:
In her September 12, 2025, email to the Board, the Appellant pre-emptively indicated her intent not to attend the scheduled hearing even though she had consented to that date during the September 5, 2025, case conference. It is clear that between September 12 and 15, 2025, the Appellant booked an appointment with her cardiologist;
On September 15, 2025, the Appellant informed the Board that she would not attend the hearing as she had a cardiologist appointment at 2:00 p.m. that day. She did not serve her notice as an adjournment request on the Respondent, nor enlist its consent or provide alternative hearing dates as required by Rule 16.1. In short, the Appellant did not provide sufficient information to allow the Board to consider her request to reschedule the hearing in this email;
By not providing alternative dates when the parties were available, the Appellant removed the opportunity for the adjudicator to proceed with the hearing on the scheduled day for at least part of it, and schedule an additional day if required with availability information from the parties;
The Appellant’s September 15, 2025, email was not a request for an adjournment. While she provided a screen shot of the confirmed medical appointment, she did not provide any other substantiating information such as a medical note, and no further explanation of why she had booked the appointment on the day when the hearing was scheduled or if there were other appointment days and times available;
By not serving the Respondent with her adjournment request, the Respondent’s witnesses were in attendance at the hearing; and
The Appellant did not serve disclosure on the Respondent, or a Book of Documents, by September 17, 2025, to the Board as ordered in the case conference report and order (CCRO). While she submitted a number of emails on September 12, 2025, they did not address the grounds of appeal described in the CCRO, and did not include a Will Say for herself or her witness.
21In conclusion, once an adjudicative event has been scheduled, a party is required to follow the Board’s process and Rules and submit an Adjournment Request form if they are unable to attend. Further, sufficient detail must be provided to enable the adjudicator to exercise judgement in granting adjournments (Wang v. Oloo, 2023 ONSC 1028). In this case, the Appellant provided insufficient information for me to grant an adjournment for the reasons set out above. I was also concerned that she had pre-emptively indicated her intent not to attend the hearing 3 days before she emailed her notice that she would not attend the hearing, and further that she had not submitted her Book of Document to the Board, with the evidence she intended to call at the hearing, by the ordered date.
22My authority for proceeding with the hearing are twofold:
Section 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, ch. s. 22, states that where notice of an electronic hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with the Act, and the party has not acted as permitted under clause 6(5)(c), if applicable, nor participates in the hearing in accordance with the notice, the tribunal may proceed without the party’s participation and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding; and
The Board’s Notice of Electronic Hearing, issued to the parties by email on September 12, 2025, states “If you fail to attend the hearing, the Board may proceed in your absence and make a decision without further notice to you.”
23Therefore, for the reasons above I found it appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Appellant .
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal as Abandoned
24Following my decision to proceed with the hearing, the Respondent requested that the Board dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Appellant had abandoned her appeal. For the reasons that follow, the Respondent’s request is dismissed.
25Rule 3.4(a) states that the Board may dismiss an appeal without a hearing if the Appellant is found to have abandoned the proceeding.
26Before dismissing an appeal without a hearing, Rule 3.5 requires me to:
Give the parties notice of my intention to dismiss the appeal;
Provide reasons for my intention to dismiss;
Inform the parties of their right to make written submissions to the Board within time limits of at least 5 days; and
Consider any written submissions.
27The Respondent gave the following reasons for its motion:
The Appellant’s conduct in not having attended the hearing to request an adjournment, and not having submitted a Request for Adjournment Form;
The Appellant consented to the hearing dates during the case conference, and to disclosure dates;
The Appellant did not submit a Will Say statement or disclosure documents;
The Appellant’s statement1 that she is unable to file a Request for Adjournment Form is not credible, because she provided other written materials, including the Application for Return and Appeal of Removal forms;
The case conference adjudicator advised the Appellant that the library had computers and printers;
The Appellant has a cell phone and could have downloaded the Zoom app and used it to attend the hearing;
The Appellant initiated the appeal, and ultimately has the burden to prove her case; and
The Appellant has repeatedly disregarded the Board’s directions, not respected the Board’s process or demonstrated an interest in proceeding with the appeal.2
28As the motion was heard at the start of the hearing, and the Appellant did not attend, she was not given an opportunity to make submissions as required by Rule 3.5.
29Having heard the Respondent’s position, I dismissed the motion because the Appellant had tried to join the hearing by phone while she was driving, indicating to me that she had not abandoned the appeal. Despite the Respondent’s grounds for its motion, none of these are evidence of abandonment.
ANALYSIS
30I confirm the August 21, 2025, Statement of Account in the amount of $4,162.96 for the reasons that follow.
The costs outlined on the SOA were incurred in relation to the animals following their removal
31I find that the costs reflected on the SOA were incurred by the Respondent for the animals’ care during the period from July 31, 2025, through August 12, 2025. These dates reflect the period between when the animals were removed to when they were returned to the Appellant. I find that the costs claimed, including boarding for the animals and the costs of medical examinations, treatments, and vaccinations, are recoverable under s. 35(2)3 of the PAWS Act because they are for providing care for animals that have been removed.
32While the Appellant submitted in her NOA that the animals could have been returned the day after removal, as she was in compliance with the Order at that point, she provided no evidence to support this in her appeal. The Order for the dogs was issued on July 2, 2025, and the Appellant had still not complied by July 31, 2025. For this reason, the dogs were removed from the Appellant’s care.
33If the Appellant believed she was in compliance, she could have reached out to Inspector Hay, or to an alternate inspector if Inspector Hay was on vacation as claimed by the Appellant, and requested a re-inspection. Without evidence of attempting to have a re-inspection, and thereby reducing the boarding costs, I find that the animals were in boarding until the owner was confirmed by AWS to be in compliance with the Order for the dogs. The cat was in boarding for the same issues, which were also deemed resolved on August 12, 2025, and not before.
34Inspector Hay testified regarding the health conditions of the two adult dogs, the lack of food and water, and the environmental conditions in the premises, which included the debris on the floor, and the ammonia levels. She testified that the latter was of particular concern regarding the health of the four puppies and the cat.
35Inspector Hay testified that on August 8, 2025, she advised the Appellant that the adult dogs’ health conditions had not resolved and that she needed to inspect the premises to ensure the Order was complied with before the animals could be returned. The Appellant agreed to the re-inspection, which was conducted on August 12, 2025. The animals were returned to the Appellant the same day.
36I accept the evidence of treating veterinarian Dr. Mehdi Zah regarding the medical examinations, treatment, and vaccinations for the animals who did not have up to date vaccinations necessary for boarding. He testified that the two adult dogs required treatment for skin issues, Juliette for scratches on her neck, and Scooby for severe dermatitis. I also accept the testimony of Inspector Hay, who testified that a puppy required further examination because of medical issues that arose while in care, but that she decided not to include these charges in the SOA because they were not pre-existing conditions.
37The Appellant expressed concern in the NOA that ultrasound for the cat was not necessary. I accept the evidence of Dr. Zah, treating veterinarian, who explained that he needed to confirm if the cat was pregnant using ultrasound, as the cat required vaccinations. He testified that pregnant cats should not be vaccinated.
38As the animals were removed by AWS, boarded, and examined and/or treated by a veterinarian, I find that the costs were incurred to care for the removed animals.
The charges on the SOA were reasonable
39Dr. Zah reviewed the patient history reports for each animal and the related invoices for the veterinarian care of each animal. This included reviewing the examination costs, testing where warranted for the adult dogs named Scooby and Juliette, and medications for them. In addition, he reviewed vaccinations given for each of the animals, explaining that the puppies were not vaccinated for rabies, as vaccination records were provided.
40Dr. Zah referred to the 2025 Ontario Small Animal Suggested Fee Guide (Fee Guide), and testified that the clinic’s invoices were well within the recommended fees. He noted as well that while the clinic, Allandale Veterinary Hospital, could have charged examination fees for each of the four puppies, it instead charged a single examination fee for the four.
41Both Dr. Zah and Inspector Hay testified regarding the boarding charges for each of the animals. Allandale Veterinary Hospital provides kennel boarding. The two adult dogs and the cat were charged a daily kennel boarding rate of $37.59 and $35.70 respectively, which was well below the Fee Guide of $88.80 and $55.60 respectively.
42Inspector Hay testified regarding discrepancies between the invoices and the SOA, explaining the following:
The four puppies were initially boarded together, and charged a single daily kennel boarding rate for eight days;
For the remaining four days, the puppies were kenneled separately and charged individual boarding daily kennel fees; however, Inspector Hay chose to reflect a single daily boarding fee for the puppies for the 12 days on the SOA, reducing the actual cost further; and
While the animals were boarded for 13 days, the Respondent was only charged 12 days of boarding for the dogs but was charged 13 days for the cat.
43I find that the charges were reasonable, being consistent with or below the Fee Guide, and I had no evidence before me that the charges were not reasonable. I also find that the veterinary charges were for issues consistent with the medical assessment for each animal, and the care provided.
The Appellant did not prove she lacked the ability to pay the SOA
44For the reasons that follow, I find that the Appellant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that she lacks the ability to pay the SOA.
45The Appellant did not attend the hearing and, therefore, did not testify. In her absence, I considered her written which include:
The Appellant’s August 21, 2025, email to the Board appealing the SOA;
The Appellant’s August 26, 2025, email to the Board attaching the Notice of Appeal Form (NOA), the Application for Return Form (Application), and the body of the email. The NOA and the Application were handwritten, and for the most part, illegible;
An email from the Appellant to the Board dated September 5, 2025; and
Six emails from the Appellant to the Board on September 12, 2025.
46In summary, the Appellant has claimed that she lacks the ability to pay the SOA, advising she is on social assistance and that she has been unable to work for some time. She provided limited evidence that she receives Ontario Works benefits, child support, and child tax benefits. She claimed that she receives $723 a month for child support and child tax benefits, but does not explain if this is the total of her income or just Ontario Works. She has also indicated that she has no saved money, and provided a screenshot of her chequing account with a negative balance.
47I place little weight on the Appellant’s written information because little documentary evidence is provided to substantiate her submissions, the information is contradictory, and her evidence could not be tested by the Respondent because she did not attend the hearing.
A) The Appellant’s evidence is contradictory
i) The Appellant may be working
48I find that it is unclear if the Appellant is working or not.
49In one email the Appellant submitted that she has not worked a day since “April of last year”. Later, in the same email, she stated, “My last Ontario works was May 1, 2024, at my place in Curtis. May 1, I came to the Trailer in Innisfil with zero dollars in my bank account.”
50In the September 12, 2025, email, the Appellant explained that her daughter told the inspector her mother was working, because she was not home. The Appellant explained that her daughter’s statement was a safety precaution to explain why her mother was not home.
51I agree with the Respondent, that the Appellant’s submissions contradict those of her daughter about whether she is working, and because she has not provided documentary evidence in support of her submission.
ii) The Appellant may have two homes
52I find that it is unclear if the Appellant’s trailer is a vacation home or her residence, which may be evidence of her ability to pay the SOA.
53On the Application to Return Form submitted on August 26, 2025, the Appellant wrote “I was in my seasonal spot.” She again stated this in her September 12, 2025, email to the Board (at 9:44 a.m.), saying “this was only a temporary state you knew I was on a seasonal spot”.
54In one of the September 12, 2025, emails to the Board, the Appellant implied that the premises the animals were removed from is her residence.
55Inspector Hay testified that on July 31, 2025, when Inspector Hay removed the animals, the Appellant told her that neither she or her children, or the dogs were currently staying in the premises as it was only a holiday home.
56I agree with the Respondent, that the Appellant provided insufficient evidence of her fixed assets, which may have a bearing on her ability to pay the SOA.
iii) The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of her cash assets
57I find that there is insufficient evidence of the Appellant’s cash assets and transactions to provide a clear picture of her financial position.
58While the Appellant provided a screenshot of a negative balance on her chequing account, it did not include any transactions.
59In one of her emails, she indicated that she needed to transfer money from her chequing account into her savings account to cover veterinary bills. She neither provided information of the balance of that account or a copy of her savings account transactions, nor testified or provided evidence of any other cash accounts.
60In summary, the Appellant has provided insufficient evidence of her cash assets and transactions to show income and disbursements to provide a clear picture of her financial position.
Conclusion
61For the reasons stated above, I find that the costs included in the SOA reflect care provided to the animals while in the Respondent’s care, and that the costs are supported and reasonable.
62I also find that the Appellant has not proved on a balance of probabilities that she lacks the ability to pay the SOA.
63I therefore confirm the SOA.
64Finally, the Appellant has requested a payment plan if she is ordered to pay the SOA. The Board does not have the power to order a payment plan or time to pay, however s. 35(5) of the PAWS Act provides that the parties may enter into an agreement to extend the time for payment or to reduce the amount to be paid, or both, provided the deadline for payment has not expired. Ontario Regulation 447/19 Ministerial Prescriptions, made under the PAWS Act, prescribes payment of a statement of account be made within 15 business days after the Board proves notice of its decision. In other words, the Appellant may contact the Respondent and negotiate a settlement to be finalized within 15 business days of the release of this decision.
ORDER
65The Statement of Account, dated August 21, 2025, in the amount of $4,162.96, is confirmed. The costs shall be paid by the Appellant to the Minister of Finance.
Released: October 24, 2025
_________________________
Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair