Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: December 1, 2025

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

Between:

Raphael Harding Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Mark Sraga, Member For the Appellant: Raphael Harding, Self-represented For the Respondent: Joanna Chan, Counsel Observers: Lisa Carr, Member, Animal Care Review Board; Francois Henri, Member, Animal Care Review Board Held by Videoconference: October 23, 2025

BACKGROUND

1Raphael Harding (Appellant) appeals a Notice of Removal (NOR) issued pursuant to section 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) by Animal Welfare Services (AWS). The NOR relates to the Appellant’s four American Bully type dogs (Dogs).

2On September 12, 2025, AWS issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) for the Dogs pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act and removed the Dogs from the Appellant’s care, relying on a veterinarian’s certificate recommending removal to alleviate the Dogs’ distress.

3On September 19, 2025, the Appellant appealed the NOR to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) (Board File No. 17725/ACRB).

4The Board issued a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) on September 25, 2025, ordering this hearing to proceed to a videoconference hearing. The hearing took place on October 23, 2025.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

5Whether the Dogs were in distress at the time of removal and, if so, whether it was necessary for AWS to remove them to relieve their distress.

RESULT

6Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Dogs were in distress on September 12, 2025, and it was necessary for AWS to remove them from the Appellant’s care to alleviate their distress.

7Pursuant to its powers in s. 38(9)2 of the PAWS Act, the Board dismisses this appeal.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Were the animals in distress on September 12, 2025? If so, was it necessary to remove the Dogs to relieve their distress?

8For the reasons that follow, I find that the Dogs were in distress and that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to remove the Dogs to relieve their distress.

9An inspector has the authority to remove animals and issue NORs pursuant to s. 31(1) of the PAWS Act, for any animal found in distress. Distress is defined in s. 1(1) as a state of being:

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

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

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

10AWS Inspector Adam Bodenstein testified that between the dates of June 29, 2025 and July 28, 2025, multiple calls were received by the Ontario Animal Protection Call Center from several different individuals regarding an owner physically abusing his animals. These complaints included the Appellant allegedly open hand slapping his dogs, dragging his dogs on their leashes, and physically abusing his dogs.

11On July 29, 2025, Inspector Bodenstein further testified that because of these complaints, he along with AWS Inspector Tyler Burge, attended the Appellant’s apartment unit to investigate these complaints. He noted that upon arrival at and entry into the Appellant’s apartment, he heard the Appellant yelling at the dogs to be quiet and that there was fresh urine and feces visible inside the apartment, which the Appellant advised he had not yet had time to clean up, as he had just woken up.

12Inspector Bodenstein further testified that he informed the Appellant that the purpose of AWS’ attendance was due to the complaints about him abusing his dogs. Inspector Bodenstein recounted that the Appellant informed him that he had a prohibition order in the past for abusing a dog and that he deserved it, but the Appellant denied ever abusing the Dogs he currently owns. Inspector Bodenstein stated that he observed four American Bully type dogs inside the apartment unit and that the Appellant informed him of their names and dates of birth, which are:

Baricade – born January 27, 2025;

Kevlar – born January 27, 2025;

Supriya – born October 22, 2023; and

Carisy – born October 22, 2023.

13Inspector Bodenstein testified that after having completed his inspection of the Appellant’s apartment unit, no further action was taken at that time. Inspector Bodenstein further testified that on July 30, 2025, he received and viewed video footage taken on July 8, 2025, by the apartment building’s internal security system. He noted that this video showed an incident involving the Appellant and his four dogs inside an elevator and the 9th floor hallway immediately outside of the elevator.

14Inspector Bodenstein further testified about the incident on video: one of the Appellant’s dogs – believed to be the dog named Carisy – was seen entering the elevator and instigating a fight with another dog that was already in the elevator with two other individuals. Inspector Bodenstein further stated that the video showed the Appellant physically throwing his dog out of the elevator in response to this incident and then attempting to smack all the dogs in the head immediately after. Inspector Bodenstein further stated that the video then showed the Appellant grabbing the dog believed to be Carisy and physically slamming the dog into the wall and then pressing the dog to the ground with his own body and continuing to kick the dog in the face/head area.

15During the hearing, the video that Inspector Bodenstein testified to having received and viewed was played. The video clearly showed the Appellant physically assaulting the dogs as Inspector Bodenstein described in his testimony.

16Inspector Bodenstein testified that after reviewing these videos and seeing the Appellant appearing to physically abuse his dogs, AWS determined that the videos needed to be sent to animal behaviouralist Dr. Janet Cutler, PhD. for analysis.

17Inspector Bodenstein further testified that Dr. Cutler provided a written report of her analysis of the two videos. He noted that in her report, she summarizes that the four dogs all showed fear of the Appellant and distress in the form of psychological hardship because of the physical abuse inflicted on them by the Appellant.

18Dr. Bruce Robertson, D.V.M. testified that Inspector Bodenstein provided him with the two videos reviewed by Dr. Cutler along with her report. Based on his own review of the videos and Dr. Cutler’s report, he concluded that the Dogs were in distress. This conclusion formed his basis for issuing a Certificate of Veterinarian advising the removal of Animals dated September 11, 2025.

19Dr. Robertson was qualified as an expert witness in veterinary medicine and testified, as he had stated in his expert report dated October 10, 2025, that in his opinion, the Dogs were in both physical and psychological distress due to the Appellant slapping, kicking and pinning them to the floor.

20Inspector Bodenstein testified that upon receipt of Dr. Robertson’s veterinarian certificate advising that removal of the Dogs was necessary to relieve their distress, he attended the Appellant’s apartment on September 12, 2025 to execute the NOR and remove the Dogs. Upon attendance, he observed an additional dog in the apartment – a female Bully type of dog that was named Nala. Inspector Bodenstein stated that when he asked the Appellant who Nala belonged to, the Appellant stated that he was looking after Nala for a friend.

21Inspector Bodenstein testified that at the time of removal, all of the Dogs displayed signs of fearfulness of the Appellant. AWS removed the four Dogs known to be owned by the Appellant and transported them to a boarding facility for examination and treatment.

22The Appellant testified that he understood that his dog’s reaction in the elevator to the other dog was normal and further stated that he simply got mad and that his excessive physical reaction to the dogs was wrong. The Appellant further stated that the kicks were not that big and that the physical discipline was “light” in his opinion, but he felt badly after the incident regarding his behaviour.

23The Appellant further testified that he did not think it was wrong to grab a dog by its collar to stop it from doing something it should not do, such as eating its own feces, nor did he think that yelling at a dog was wrong.

24The Appellant also testified when questioned by the Respondent about previous matters involving him physically abusing dogs, that he had been convicted in 2019 of physically abusing his dog and was prohibited from owning a dog for two years because of that conviction. The Appellant further stated that he ignored that two-year prohibition and obtained another dog within a year of the conviction with the belief that he would not get caught.

25The Appellant, when questioned by the Respondent regarding who owned the dog that was clearly visible during the video hearing, stated that it was his dog.

26The Appellant further stated that this was the same dog that he told Inspector Bodenstein was not his, but a friend’s dog he was looking after when Inspector Bodenstein attended his apartment on September 12, 2025, to issue the NOR and remove the four dogs seen in the two videos that were captured on July 8, 2025.

27The Appellant also testified when questioned that he has not taken any form of dog training or dog handling lessons despite his past conviction of physically abusing his dog and his own acknowledgement that slapping, kicking or hitting a dog is never appropriate.

28I find that, based on the uncontested professional opinion of Dr. Bruce Robertson, D.V.M. combined with the written report of Dr. Cutler, the Dogs were subject to physical and psychological distress.

29I find that the Appellant’s own admission to hitting and kicking his Dogs, which he acknowledged doing in the hearing and agreed is never an appropriate manner to discipline a dog, further supports my finding that the Dogs were subject to physical and psychological distress.

30For the reasons stated above, I find that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the Dogs were in distress and that their removal was necessary to relieve them of their physical and psychological distress. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.

ORDER

31Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9)2 of the PAWS Act, I dismiss the appeal of the Notice of Removal.