Samara Flaro v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 189

Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 03/11/2025

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

Between:

Samara Flaro

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member

For the Appellant: Samara Flaro, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel

Held by Videoconference: August 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 and September 4, 2025

BACKGROUND

1Samara Flaro (Appellant) is the owner of 8 dogs (Dogs) that live with her and her adult son in their rural residence. Five of the Dogs are Dachshund type of dogs and three of the Dogs are Golden Retriever type dogs.

2On July 16, 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) entered the Appellant’s residence under the authority of a warrant obtained pursuant to s. 28(2) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act). Upon completion of the inspection, AWS removed the Dogs from the Appellant’s residence and issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act, which indicated that a veterinarian had advised in writing that removal of the Dogs was necessary to relieve their distress.

3On July 19, 2025, the Appellant appealed the NOR to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) and argued that the animals were not in distress and removal was unwarranted.

4On July 23, 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) issued a Decision to Keep Animals in Care (DTK) pursuant to s. 31(6)(a) and s. 31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act. The Appellant appealed the DTK to the Board and sought the return of the Dogs.

5On July 25, 2025, the Respondent issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to the Appellant pursuant to s. 35 of the PAWS Act, requiring her to pay$13,934.44 for the Dogs’ boarding and veterinary care costs. The costs were incurred between the period of July 16-24, 2025. The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Board and seeks to have the SOA revoked.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

6The issues in dispute in this matter are:

Notice of Removal appeal (17380/ACRB):

a) Were the Dogs in distress on the day they were removed?

b) If so, was it necessary to remove the Dogs to relieve their distress?

c) Should the Dogs be returned to the Appellant?

Decision to Keep appeal (17416/ACRB):

a) Was it necessary for the Respondent to keep the Dogs in care to alleviate their distress?

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

c) Should the Dogs be returned to the Appellant?

Statement of Account appeal (17417/ACRB):

a) Should the Statement of Account, dated July 25, 2025, in the amount of $13,934.44 be confirmed, revoked or varied?

RESULT

7Based on the evidence before me, I find:

1. That the Dogs were not in distress when the decision to remove them was made; and

2. I find that the Respondent did not need to keep the Dogs in its care to relieve their distress or that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant when it issued the DTK on July 23, 2025. I order that the Dogs be returned to the Appellant; and

3. The Statement of Account in the amount of $13,934.44 is revoked.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Appellant’s motion to extend deadline for submission of witness statement

8The Appellant sought an order extending the date set out in the Board’s Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) by which witness statements were to be provided to the Respondent.

9The CCRO ordered that no documents and/or things that are disclosed and/or provided to the other party after 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 2025, may be used as evidence at the hearing unless otherwise ordered by the hearing adjudicator.

10The Appellant submitted that one of her witnesses, Mr. Touchette, was away on vacation until August 12, 2025, and this resulted in the Appellant not being able to provide his witness statement by the deadline set out in the CCRO. The Appellant submitted the witness statement they are seeking an extension for was submitted on August 15, 2025.

11The Respondent confirmed that they had received the witness statement of Mr. Touchette on August 14, 2025, shortly after the 5:00 p.m. deadline, that they had no concerns regarding this matter as they had plenty of time to review and prepare for the hearing regarding it and that they consented to this motion request.

12The Appellant’s motion was granted.

Issue 1: Where the animals in distress on July 16, 2025? If so, was it necessary to remove the animals to alleviate their distress?

13Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act as the state of being:

(b) in need of proper care, water, food or shelter,

(c) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or

(d) abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

14Taking into consideration the Respondent’s testimony, photographic and video evidence taken on the day of the investigation by AWS, as well as the testimony and evidence of the Appellant and her witnesses, I find that on the balance of probabilities the Dogs were not in distress on July 16, 2025. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.

Where the Dogs in distress on July 16, 2025

15Inspector Samantha Delahaye testified that on July 16, 2025, at approximately 12:30 p.m., she along with AWS Inspectors Bryans and Macdonald, Senior Investigator Rene Baker (S.I. Baker) and Regional Veterinarian Dr. Bruce Robertson, D.V.M. inspected the Appellant’s property under the authority of a warrant.

16Inspector Delahaye testified that this inspection was conducted because a call had been received by the Animal Protection Call Centre from an Ontario Provincial Police officer stating there were concerns for the welfare of the dogs at the Appellant’s residence. These concerns included the dogs having no proper food or water and reports of physical abuse and strangulation and were based on statements made to the OPP officers by Austin Flaro while they were responding to a mental health issue at the Appellant’s residence.

17Inspector Delahaye testified that after entry into the Appellant’s residence and conducting an inspection of the residence that she determined the Appellant’s residence to be unsanitary, had insufficient lighting, insufficient space for the movement of the dogs as well as a lack of water available for the dogs. Inspector Delahaye testified that this determination was based on the following observations.

1. The curtains on the windows were drawn closed resulting in low lighting levels inside the house.

2. The interior of the house was very dusty – photos taken by AWS on the day of the inspection and entered as evidence show visible signs of dust on various items of furniture in the living room area of the Appellant’s residence.

3. There were two dog crates in the living room area which were dirty with large hairballs in them, had no bedding and contained empty bowls with no water or food in them and the bottoms of them were warm to the touch.

4. There was one crate in the kitchen which had old, soiled newspapers and dried feces in it and several small ones in the Appellant’s bedroom, but no dogs were found in any of the crates at the time of the inspection.

5. Austin Flaro’s bedroom was very messy with piles of clothing and items all over the room and there was no door leading to the room.

6. There was a rabbit¹ in Austin Flaro’s bedroom that was loose, and the crate used to house the rabbit was dirty and unsanitary. Also, there were rabbit feces throughout the room and there was no visible water or food for the rabbit. Due to the lack of a door on the bedroom, the Dogs had access to this room, including the rabbit feces.

7. Ms. Flaro’s bedroom contained several small pet carriers which were dirty and had no water in them. There was also a chipmunk² in a small live trap with the live trap sitting on top of a small pet carrier with a piece of cardboard placed immediately under the live trap. This piece of cardboard was completely saturated in feces and maggots to which the Dogs had access to.

8. Some areas of the house had dirty flooring/floors with visible hair balls and damaged flooring and walls.

9. The basement of the house was inspected and was very dirty and contained unused and discarded items; no animals were found there.

10. The side yard area of the house is the area that appeared to be used by the Dogs to relieve themselves and the area was small and had feces in it along with wood shavings on the ground.

18Inspector Delahaye also testified that during the inspection the Appellant placed a large bowl of water down for the Dogs in the kitchen area and that the Dogs swarmed the water bowl and drank excessively, leading her to conclude that the Dogs were excessively thirsty.

19Inspector Delahaye testified that at one point during the inspection that she observed the Golden Retriever type dog named Bear lose his balance and fall over on several occasions when Bear was outside of the house. Because of this, Bear was immediately removed and taken by Inspector Macdonald for urgent veterinary care due to possible neurological issues.

20Inspector Delahaye testified that she took into consideration several factors in making her determination to remove the Dogs from the Appellant’s residence in addition to Dr. Robertson’s issuance of a certificate advising that the removal of animals was necessary to relieve their distress. These factors included comments made by Austin Flaro regarding his concern of his mother’s ability to look after this many dogs, as well as historical information contained in AWS’s files regarding the Appellant and past issues regarding the care of other animals in the Appellant’s custody/ownership.

21The Notice of Removal was issued pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act, stating that a veterinarian has advised the inspector that removal was necessary to relieve the animals’ distress and that the reasons cited for the dogs being in distress were: lack of water, unsanitary conditions, lack of space, inability to exercise/move, lack of lighting.

22The following are my finding with respect to each of the reasons cited in the NOR causing the Dogs to be in distress and the necessity to remove the Dogs.

Lack of water

23Inspector Delahaye, S.I. Baker and Dr. Robertson all testified that they observed the Dogs drinking excessively when a bowl of water was placed on the floor in the kitchen by the Appellant on the morning of the inspection and that this observation led to their determination that the Dogs were not provided with access to water.

24Dr. Robertson testified that one of his primary concerns regarding the Dogs was the issue of availability of water. Dr. Robertson testified that it was his observation/determination that when the Appellant provided water to the Dogs at the time of the inspection, the way they drank the water indicated to him that the Dogs were not provided with water as necessary.

25Dr. Robertson further testified that it was his opinion that if the only issues of non-compliance with the standards of care were the unsanitary conditions or inappropriate lighting levels inside the house, then the issuance of orders may have been an appropriate course of action by AWS. However, it was his opinion that due to previous experience with the Appellant and the lack of water provided to the dogs in those instances that the issuance of a certificate recommending removal of the Dogs was warranted and necessary to relieve the dogs of distress. I find that this opinion of previous experience with the Appellant and that they would not comply with any orders that AWS may issue is not a basis on which to recommend removal of the Dogs by a veterinarian.

26The Appellant testified that she does provide water to the Dogs and that their behaviour at that time was due to the dogs being anxious due to the presence of AWS and that it was during a hot day – the Appellant testified that a heat alert had been issued for the day in question. In addition to the Appellant’s testimony, both Austin Flaro and Ms. Holden testified about the level of care and attention that the Appellant provided to the Dogs and that she ensured their well-being, including providing them with water. I accepted these witnesses’ evidence in that regard. Their evidence was based on their personal observations and was consistent throughout their testimony.

27While there were no physical examinations carried out on the Dogs at the Appellants house prior to their removal, the Dogs did receive physical examinations at the time of intake at the humane society animal clinic. The medical records of these physical exams indicate that they were all found to have normal hydration levels, which I find supports the Appellant’s argument that the Dogs are provided with adequate amounts of water.

28I find that a singular observation of the dogs drinking water during the inspection does not support the determination by AWS that the Dogs were not provided with adequate and appropriate water.

29Taking into consideration the testimony of the Appellant, her witnesses and combined with the findings of the physical exams that the Dogs were not dehydrated, I find it is more likely than not that the Dogs were provided with appropriate amounts of water and not denied access to it.

Unsanitary Conditions

30The Respondent’s witnesses who were present on the date of inspection on July 16, 2025, testified about their observations/findings regarding the level of cleanliness of the Appellant’s house and their evidence was generally consistent that the home was unclean. However, there were some inconsistencies between the testimony of Inspector Delahaye and S.I. Baker and that of Dr. Robertson regarding there being dog urine or feces on the floor surfaces inside the house.

31Neither inspector testified that they observed or saw dog urine or feces on any of the floors or inside of the dog crates; in fact, S.I. Baker clearly stated that except for the pee pads located in the washroom, she did not observe any dog urine or feces on the floors or inside the dog crates located in the living room or in the Appellant’s bedroom.

32This is inconsistent with Dr. Robertson’s testimony that he observed dog urine and feces on the floors of the house as well as smelling both urine and feces in the house. Dr. Robertson further testified that he did not smell any levels of ammonia, which he stated indicated to him that if there was any deposited dog urine or feces, it was quickly removed. However, Dr. Robertson testified that the house smelled “dirty” to him and that there appeared to be no evidence of regular cleaning.

33While the photographic and video evidence submitted by the Respondent did show levels of clutter and messiness throughout the house, as well as a buildup of dust on furniture in the living room, there was no evidence submitted other than the pee pads in the washroom that showed dog feces and urine on the floor surfaces inside the house. The Appellant and Austin Flaro both testified that two of the Dachshunds used the pee pads located in the washroom.

34The Respondent’s witnesses further testified that the side yard area of the house had significant amounts of feces and urine on the ground. The Appellant testified that this is the area of the property that is used by the Dogs as their washroom and that the Dogs had been placed out there when AWS had shown up at the property that day and that this contributed to the amount of feces found in this area at the time of the inspection.

35The Appellants sister – Ms. Holden testified that based on her personal observations while visiting the Appellant’s house many times over 20 years, she said she never found the house to be dirty or noticed any urine or feces odours in the house. Austin Flaro further testified that if any of the dogs did relieve themselves in the house that his mother cleans it up right away.

36Based on these facts, I do not find the level of uncleanliness inside the house to be such that it created such an unsanitary condition that placed the Dogs in distress. I also take note that the medical reports of the physical exams conducted on the Dogs shortly after removal do not indicate that the dogs had urine or feces-stained fur, something that may be indicative that they were subjected to laying or resting in feces or urine-soaked areas.

Lack of space/inability to exercise/move

37Dr. Robertson testified that in his opinion the house was too small for eight dogs and two adults to be living in it, that there was insufficient space for the Dogs or that their movement inside or outside was restricted. However, no evidence was provided on what standards or criteria Dr. Robertson based his opinion on and I find this opinion not persuasive.

38The Appellant and her witnesses testified that the Dogs had complete access to all areas of the ground floor of the house, except for Austin Flaro’s bedroom, and that the Dogs were not allowed in the basement. The Appellant and Austin Flaro both also testified that that the Dachshunds were allowed onto her bed and that none of the dogs were crated, and that the dog crates were used during feeding to help ensure that each dog got their own bowl of food. I also note that the Respondent’s witnesses testified that they did not observe or find any dogs confined to any of the crates during their inspection on July 16, 2025.

39Dr. Robertson and S.I. Baker both testified that the rear yard was overgrown and did not appear to be maintained with the side yard having wood chips covering the ground with urine and feces in this area.

40The Appellant testified that the property was half an acre in size and that the side yard of the house was only used as a washroom area for the Dogs and that the rear yard of the property was where the Dogs were taken out daily to get exercise.

41Based on these facts along with the photographic evidence submitted during the hearing along with the Appellant and her witness’s testimony, I do not find that there was insufficient space for the Dogs or that the Dogs ability to move or exercise was restricted.

Lack of lighting

42The Respondent’s witnesses who inspected the house all testified that the house was “dimly lit” or “dark” and that they needed to use their flashlights to see all areas of the house during their inspection. The photographic and video evidence submitted by the Respondent does show at times the utilization of flashlights by the inspectors while inside the home. However, this same photographic and video evidence does also show that there is natural light visible in the house and that it appears to be sufficient to clearly see inside the house. I also take note that S. I. Baker testified that the Appellant was not asked to turn on any lights inside the house during the inspection and when asked why not, S.I. Baker stated that using a flashlight was easier.

43The Respondent’s witnesses did not identify any specific illumination levels that needed to be achieved or maintained for the Dogs or reference any standards that stated the levels of lighting that needed to be provided, nor did they provide any testimony on how the Appellant’s house was insufficient to any such standards that may exist.

44I accept the Appellant’s testimony that the house had sufficient lighting and that the curtains over the windows were closed to help keep the house cool that day as there had been a heat alert issued for that day. The Appellant also testified that it had been not a bright sunny day that day and was overcast. I also considered photographs submitted in evidence by the Respondent that show natural lighting in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen area that supports the Appellant’s position that there was sufficient lighting inside the house.

45Based on these facts, I do not find that the house had insufficient levels of lighting or illumination for the Dogs.

CONCLUSION

46For the reasons set out above, I find that the Dogs were more likely than not provided with water, were not living in unsanitary conditions, had sufficient space to move/exercise and that there were sufficient levels of lighting in the house such that they were not in distress at the time of removal and that removal was not necessary.

47Therefore, I order that the Dogs removed on July 16, 2025, be returned to the Appellant.

Issue 2: Was it necessary for the Respondent to keep the Dogs in care to alleviate their distress and did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?

48On July 23, 2025, Regional Supervisor Victoria Crocker (R.S. Crocker) issued a Decision to Keep in Care for the Dogs, indicating that it was necessary to keep them in the care of the Respondent to relieve them of distress, and that she had reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.

49R.S. Crocker testified that she relied on the information provided to her by Inspector Delahaye which included the NOR issued on July 16, 2025, AWS current case file reports, photographs, the veterinary certificate issued by Dr. Robertson and the veterinary medical records from the clinics the Dogs were taken to when considering Inspector Delahaye’s request for a DTK.

50R.S. Crocker also testified that she also took into consideration past history of AWS’ involvement with the Appellant including the removal of animals from the Appellant’s residence and a previous conviction of the Appellant under the PAWS Act.

51The reasons cited by R.S. Crocker in the DTK for her decision to issue it are summarized as follows.

11. Lack of access to appropriate food and water³;

12. Animals not provided with care necessary for their general welfare and found to be dirty, matted and with overgrown nails;

13. Living areas were dark, unsanitary with no clean bedding provided;

14. Dogs required on-going medical attention due to dental issues, urinary tract infections ear and eye concerns and thinning fur;

15. Five dogs tested positive for Lyme disease requiring on-going treatment for two to four weeks and re-testing;

16. A dog will require extraction of a safety pin, scheduled for July 28, 2025.

52S. 31(6) of the PAWS Act states that the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may decide to keep an animal that was removed under subsection (1) or (2) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care if,

(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 place 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.

53In this matter, the Respondent had issued the DTK based on s. 31(6)(a) and s. 31(6)(b)(i).

Animals subject to appeal of DTK

54During the hearing and in closing submissions by the parties, it was confirmed that the Appellant was not appealing the DTK with respect to the rabbit and they were not seeking the return of the rabbit. It had also been previously confirmed that the chipmunk was not part of these proceedings. Therefore, only the Dogs are the subject of this matter.

Did the Dogs need to be kept in the care of CAWI to relieve their distress?

55For the reasons that follow, I find that it was unnecessary for the Respondent to keep the Dogs in its care to relieve their distress when the CAWI made its Decision to Keep in Care on July 23, 2025.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

56R.S. Crocker testified that she did not have any discussions or seek any additional information from a veterinarian regarding the Dogs and relied on post removal care information for the Dogs when considering the issuance of the DTK. R.S. Crocker also stated how important medical records were in deciding if the Dogs needed to be kept in care to relieve their medical distress.

57R.S. Crocker stated that the medical records she reviewed were the ones dated July 22, 2025, and provided by the Humane Society of Greater Niagara Animal Clinic and the Kawartha Veterinary Emergency Clinic which were the two clinics that the Dogs were taken to after removal.

58R.S. Crocker testified that it was the on-going medical needs and treatments for the Dogs that formed the basis for her decision that the Dogs needed to be kept in the care of the CAWI and that she believed that some of the required on-going medical treatments of the Dogs could only be provided at a veterinary facility and would require transporting the dog from and forth from the Appellants residence to the veterinary facility if the Dogs were returned to the Appellant.

59R.S. Crocker further testified that the Dogs required on-going treatments to relieve their distress along with veterinary re-checks and that she had a concern of the Appellant’s willingness to cooperate with AWS in ensuring the provision of this care if the Dogs were returned to her. R.S. Crocker also stated that she considered the need for further diagnostics as indicated in the medical reports as equating to additional medical care being required for the Dogs.

60R.S. Crocker also testified that when making her decision that the Dogs needed to be kept in the care by the CAWI that she relied upon the fact that the animals were found to be in distress at the time of removal.

61Dr. Nicola Jackson, D.V.M., provided expert testimony regarding her review of the Dogs’ medical records and that these records were the results of the physical examinations and tests administered to each dog upon arrival at the clinic they were taken to after removal from the Appellants house. Her testimony was based solely on her review of these documents since she did not examine any of the Dogs themselves. Dr. Jackson’s testimony included her stating that based on her review of the medical records, that any medical issues regarding the Dogs could have been addressed through the issuance of orders as opposed to removal.

62Dr. Jackson’s testimony and expert opinion that after having reviewed the medical records for the Dogs that they were not in distress due to medical reasons I find is very significant and compelling. I note that the medical examinations for the Dogs was very extensive including x-rays of all the dogs and blood testing and no significant or urgent medical issues were identified.

63Given my finding on the appeal of the NOR that the Dogs were not in distress at the time of removal and combined with Dr. Jackson’s testimony, I find that the Dogs did not need to be kept in the care of the Respondent and that any required on-going treatment such as the administrating of antibiotics could be provided by the Appellant at their home or by taking the Dogs to a veterinary facility for any necessary additional diagnostic examinations or treatments that were indicated the medical records.

Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs would be placed in distress if they were returned to the Appellant?

64For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant. I made this determination after considering the reasons cited in the DTK and the testimony of the witnesses and evidence submitted.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

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

65R.S. Crocker testified that there were several factors that she relied upon when making her determination that the Dogs may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant. These factors included the medical findings contained in the reports, inspector’s observations regarding the living conditions and level of care provided to the Dogs as contained in their inspection notes and AWS’s previous involvement with the Appellant.

66The Appellant and Austin Flaro both testified how important the Dogs were to the Appellant and how much she loved the Dogs, was the primary care giver for the Dogs and ensured they were well fed and looked after including brushing the Dachshunds teeth due to them being a breed prone to dental issues. I find that the testimony by the Appellant and Austin Flaro to be consistent and compelling regarding the level of care the Appellant provides to the Dogs.

67Ms. Holden testified that the Appellant was a caring and responsible pet owner and ensured that the Dogs were never left alone for any length of time and were well fed, and she did not have any concerns with how the Appellant cared for the Dogs.

68Testimony was provided during the hearing by the witnesses for both parties regarding the Appellants previous involvement with AWS regarding non-compliance with the PAWS Act. While I do not dismiss that there have been previous issues regarding the Appellant and other animals she has owned or found in her house, I do not find them to being a determining factor in this matter since I have found that the Dogs were not in distress at the time of their removal on July 16, 2025.

69Having found that the Dogs were not in distress at the time of their removal which took into consideration both the living conditions and the level of care being provided by the Appellant, I find that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs may be placed in distress if there were returned to the Appellant.

CONCLUSION

70For the reasons set out above, I find that the Dogs did not need to be kept in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to relieve their distress nor were there reasonable grounds for the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to believe that the Dogs may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.

71The Dogs are to be returned to the Appellant.

Issue 3: Should the SOA dated July 25, 2025, be confirmed, revoked, or varied?

72For the reasons that follow, I revoke the SOA.

73S. 35(1) of the PAWS Act permits the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to serve the owner of an animal a statement of account regarding any costs incurred in relation to taking steps to relieve an animal’s distress, removing an animal from a place, or keeping or taking an animal into care.

74The SOA in this matter totaled $13,934.44 and consisted of:

1. $3,240.00 in boarding costs; and

2. $10,739.44 in veterinary costs.

75Having found that the Dogs were not in distress on the day they were removed, and the animals did not need to be kept in the care of the Respondent, I find that the Appellant is not liable for the costs incurred by the Respondent.

ORDER

76Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act:

1. I find that the Dogs were not in distress when removed on July 16, 2025; and

2. I find that the Respondent did not have reasonable grounds to issue the DTK and keep the Appellants Dogs in it care; and

3. I order the return of the Dogs to the Appellant; and

4. The SOA is revoked.

Released: November 3, 2025

____________________________

Mark Sraga, Member

Footnotes

1. 1The rabbit was the subject of another Notice of Removal issued on July 16, 2025, to Austin Flaro, who was the owner of the rabbit. That Notice of Removal has not been appealed and the rabbit is not part of the animals in this Notice of Removal appeal hearing.
2. 2The chipmunk was removed by AWS, treated and released into the wild and is not part of this Notice of Removal appeal hearing.
3. 3R.S. Crocker clarified during the hearing that the reference to lack of food in the DTK was only applicable to the rabbit and chipmunk and not an issue for the Dogs.