Carl Hanna v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 193

Date: 11/17/2025

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: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Carl Hanna, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Joshua Matson, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services Jessica Holroyd, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: September 29, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Carl Hanna (Appellant) appeals to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $41,566.85. The SOA was issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on August 19, 2025.

2The Appellant is the owner of fourteen dogs aged approximately 18 months (the animals), that lived with him at his daughter’s residence in Kingston, Ontario (residence).

3On May 7, 2025, AWS Inspector Lori Lamb 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 him to provide potable water to the animals at all times, bedding for them (that they will not ingest), individual kennels for each dog, and solid bottoms for the kennels posing no risk of injury. Compliance was ordered by May 14, 2025.

4Inspector Lamb returned to the residence several times for compliance checks, and on June 24, 2025, she removed the animals. A Notice of Removal was issued to the Appellant, advising that removal was pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act because the Appellant had not complied with the Order.

5On June 25, 2025, Inspector Lamb served the Appellant with a statement of account in the amount of $7,142.84 pursuant to s. 35 of the PAWS Act for the care of his animals while in the Respondents care after their removal. The Appellant appealed this statement (SOA #1) to the Board, and the appeal was heard on August 20, 2025. The Board had not released its decision at the time of this hearing.

6On August 20, 2025, AWS issued a second statement of account (SOA #2) pursuant to s. 35 of the PAWS Act, requiring the Appellant to pay $41,566.85 for veterinary and boarding costs incurred for caring for the animals between June 25 and July 27, 2025.

7The Appellant appealed SOA #2 to the Board on August 30, 2025. His grounds were that the animals should never have been removed as he was in compliance with the Order at the time they were removed.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

8The issue before the Board was set out in the case conference report and order (CCRO) following a case conference held on September 11, 2025, as:

1. Should SOA #2, dated August 19, 2025, in the amount of $41,566.85 be confirmed, varied, or revoked?

RESULT

9SOA #2 dated August 19, 2025, and later amended by the Respondent to $38,007.35 during the hearing, is confirmed. The costs shall be paid to the Minister of Finance.

ANALYSIS

10The Respondent bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the costs in SOA #2 (as amended) reflect costs incurred for care provided and that the costs are reasonable. Once the Respondent meets this initial evidentiary burden, the onus shifts to the Appellant to show, on a balance of probabilities, that SOA #2 should be varied or revoked: Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div. Ct.) at para 41 and s. 35(1), PAWS Act.

The animals were removed in accordance with the [PAWS Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2019-c-13/latest/so-2019-c-13.html)

11The animals were removed for non-compliance with the Order, pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act.

12The sole basis for the Appellant’s appeal of SOA #2 was that the animals should never have been removed because he was in compliance with the Order at the time the animals were removed. I found that the Appellant was attempting to litigate the removal of the animals, even though this was not before me.

13The Appellant advised that he had appealed the removal of his dogs, but that the Respondent told him he had to withdraw his previous appeals of the Order and the removal, to have his animals returned. The Respondent submitted that on August 8, 2025, it emailed the Appellant asking if he was withdrawing his appeals, as they would not impact the SOA appeal. On this basis he withdrew his appeals.

14I allowed both parties to provide their positions on the removal as it might have some bearing on the quantum of SOA #2. Ultimately, the Appellant admitted that he had not complied fully with the Oder, stating that he “complied to a degree”. He further stated that he could not comply with the Order until he moved to a rural property where he could allow the animals to run free, and crating the animals was no longer necessary.

15Inspector Lamb testified that she removed the animals on June 24, 2025, as the Appellant had not complied with the Order.

The animals were returned to the Appellant when the Respondent determined the Order had been complied with, and they would not be returned to conditions causing distress

16The Appellant submitted that when Inspector Lamb attended the residence (on June 7 and June 24, 2025), he advised her that he would be moving to a rural property where the animals would not need to be crated.

17Inspector Lamb testified that she advised the Appellant to notify her when he had moved, and to provide the landlord’s contact information so she could inspect the property to confirm the animals would not be placed in distress if returned to him there.

18Inspector Lamb further testified that the Appellant provided her contact information for the landlord. She contacted the landlord and found that the Appellant had not yet made arrangements with her. The landlord, however, agreed to an inspection.

19On July 18, 2025, AWS conducted an inspection of the rural property the Appellant subsequently moved to during the last week of July 2025. On July 27, 2025, AWS determined that the Appellant was in full compliance with the Order and that the animals could be returned to him. The animals were returned in phases between July 29 and early August, following spaying and neutering of the animals based on an agreement between the parties that this would be done at no cost to the Appellant.

20In summary, the animals were returned when the Respondent was able to determine that they would not be returned to conditions causing distress. These dates are relevant to the analysis that follows on the issue of reasonableness, and speaks to the parties’ agreement that the Appellant would not be charged for boarding costs incurred after July 27, 2025, which is the date the Respondent made the determination that the animals could be returned.

SOA #2 reflects actual boarding and medication costs

21The Statement of Account dated August 19, 2025, was initially in the amount of $41,566.85. At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent advised that the total of SOA #2 was reduced to $38,007.35, which included the boarding costs of the animals (reduced from $39,154.50 to $35,595.00), and medication costs ($2,412.35). The reduction in boarding costs was based on an agreement with the Appellant not to charge him for boarding after July 27, 2025, which was the date the Respondent determined that the Appellant had complied with the Order.

22The Appellant submitted that he took no issue with the amount of SOA #2, but that he might have an issue with the accuracy of it. He provided no evidence to support this concern. I reviewed the accounting to ensure that SOA #2 properly reflected the invoices for boarding and medications, taking into account that boarding after July 27, 2025, was not included, nor were transportation costs.

23I find that SOA #2 reflects actual boarding and medication costs, noting that the amounts on the supporting invoices were reduced by removing any boarding after July 27, 2025, at the agreement of the parties, and removing any transportation costs.

The costs reflected in SOA, as amended, are reasonable

24Section 35(1)2 of the PAWS Act states that the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may serve on the owner or custodian a statement of account respecting any costs incurred in relation to animals if the costs were incurred in relation to the removal of an animal. Section 35(2)3 states that the costs may include the costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed.

25In the case of SOA #2, as amended, the Respondent has included costs of boarding for the period the animals were in care, and medications. For the reasons that follow, I find that these costs were reasonable.

Boarding

26It was established above that the animals were removed on June 24, 2025. It was also established above that the Respondent determined the Appellant’s new residence was suitable for the dogs to be returned to him on July 27, 2025.

27While the animals were not immediately returned, SOA #2 was amended to not include the cost of boarding the animals past July 27, 2025.

28While the Appellant submitted that the PAWS Act does not compel him to move his place of residence, I find that moving to a rural property was his solution to provide shelter such that the animals did not need to be kept in crates and had free access to water.

29I find that until the Appellant was able to ensure the animals could be returned to conditions that would not cause them distress, it was necessary to keep them in boarding and therefore costs related to that service were incurred.

30I accept the Respondent’s uncontested evidence that the boarding facility was selected because it had availability to board all the animals together, which was requested by the Appellant.

31The Appellant did not dispute the daily boarding rate of $75 per day per dog.

32I find that the costs of boarding reflected in the amended SOA #2 are reasonable, because they accurately reflect the number of days the animals were kept in care until the Appellant complied with the Order.

Medications

33The Appellant submitted a number of concerns regarding the medications:

1. The animals had already been vaccinated and should not have been re-vaccinated;

2. SOA #2 included duplicative charges with the earlier statement of account (SOA #1), dated June 25, 2025, for flea and tick medication;

3. The flea and tick medication was administered at 30 days, when the animals were only kept 32 days (and the animals were not returned with the remaining tablets); and

4. The treatment for Giardia was expensive, and there was no reason to treat all the animals when only one tested positive.

34I am persuaded by the Respondent’s evidence that:

1. The animals were not vaccinated while in the Respondent’s care, and SOA #2 does not include a charge for vaccinations;

2. SOA #1, dated June 25th, 2025, included charges for flea and tick preventative treatment when the animals were removed on June 24, 2025, but that the treatment was only effective for 30 days. On July 15, 2025, Inspector Lamb requested new medication for the animals, which was dispensed on July 24, 2025, to extend the period of protection. The SOA #2charges for the medication reflect the second treatment;

3. At the time Inspector Lamb ordered new flea and tick medication, it was unknown how long the animals would be in the Respondent’s care. Inspector Lamb testified that flea and tick prevention is required for animals in care to ensure fleas and ticks do not get passed on or that animals don’t get it if exposed, and that ticks are prevalent in Eastern Ontario, with approximately 75% of animals testing positive;

4. While only one dog tested positive for Giardia, four were tested because they had diarrhea, which is a symptom of Giardia. Because Giardia is a one-cell parasite, it is not always evident on fecal deposit; a negative test does not necessarily mean that an animal does not have Giardia. Treating all the animals in a boarding facility where the animals are in close proximity was a “best practice” decision she made based on her background in shelter medicine. The disease is very transmissible, and preventative treatment is more cost effective than later testing and treating. All other animals at the boarding facility were also treated.

35I accept the Respondent’s evidence that it is standard practice to treat all dogs within the shelter for Giardia, even when only one dog tests positive, due to the disease being contagious.

36Inspector Lamb did not address the Appellant’s question regarding the remainder of the prescribed flea and tick medication. Regardless, this does not affect my decision. It is up to the parties to resolve this issue independent of this decision.

37I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the costs of the flea and tick medication and the Giardia medication were reasonable, and that it was more economical if they were given as preventative medication than having to conduct testing and administer treatment if the animals contracted any of these conditions.

38I accept Inspector Lamb’s evidence that the charge of approximately $100 for flea and tick medication is fairly consistent throughout the province, and that the veterinarian determines the cost of dispensing medications for both treatments. While Inspector Lamb was unable to provide a comparative cost for Giardia medication, she explained this was because she usually sees it in much larger doses and that veterinarian clinics determine their dispensing fee based on the published Fee Guide of the Ontario Veterinarian Medical Association.

39For all of the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find the costs of boarding or medications to be unreasonable.

Appellant does not pursue inability to pay as a ground of appeal

40Having found that SOA #2 reflected actual costs incurred by the Respondent, and that those costs were reasonable, there was no other basis to consider the Appellant’s submission that it should be revoked or varied.

41Specifically, the Board’s CCRO indicated that one of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal was inability to pay SOA #2 given his income and expenses.

42The Appellant disagreed with the grounds reflected in the CCRO and stated that he was not appealing SOA #2 on the basis that he could not afford to pay it. Accordingly, the Appellant provided no submissions regarding inability to pay.

Conclusions

43While the removal of the animals was not before me, I found sufficient evidence that the quantum of SOA #2 for boarding, respecting the dates of removal and return of the animals was reasonable.

44I find that the costs reflected on SOA #2 were incurred by the Respondent for the animals’ care from June 25 through July 27, 2025, i.e., starting on the day following their removal and the day they were eligible to be returned to the Appellant. I find the costs on SOA #2 reflect the actual and necessary boarding and medication costs, and the amount incurred was reasonable.

45I find that the costs reflected in SOA #2, including boarding for the animals and the costs of medications, are recoverable under s. 35(2)3 of the PAWS Act because they were incurred for providing care for animals that have been removed.

ORDER

46SOA #2, dated August 19, 2025, later amended by the Respondent in the amount of $38,007.35, is confirmed. The costs shall be paid to the Minister of Finance.