Application and appeals under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (“PAWS Act”).
Between:
Sylvie Trépanier
Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Matthew M. Létourneau, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Sylvie Trépanier Cal Rosemond, Counsel
For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel Rodney Braun, AWS Inspector
Heard: By Videoconference on October 2, 3, 15, and 17, 2025
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Sylvie Trépanier, appeals from an Animal Welfare Service’s (AWS) decision of August 21, 2025, to remove certain animals from her home during that day’s inspection at her residence in North Lancaster, Ontario.
2AWS Inspectors conducted an inspection following complaints received from third parties regarding animals on the premises. AWS inspectors and the attending veterinarian found that many of the appellant’s animals were in distress. On the advice of an AWS veterinarian attending with the inspectors, they took possession of the animals to alleviate the distress pursuant to paragraph 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act.
3The appellant operates an exotic animal business called Lancaster Pet Supplies and is the owner of many diverse animals being kept at her home that make up the subject of this appeal. Some were in cages in her home at her residence, some in cages in a shed located in her yard and some in an outdoor caged area in the backyard. She contests the respondent’s decision to remove the animals and their finding of distress.
4The main issue in her appeal is whether the following animals were in distress at the time of removal on August 21, 2025, and whether it was necessary for AWS to remove these animals to alleviate their distress:
a. 3 Japanese Macaques,
b. 1 Capuchin,
c. 1 Fennec Fox, and
d. 2 Genets.
5The parties attended the videoconference hearing on October 2, 3, 15, and 17, 2025. The hearing was adjourned on October 2 to allow for newly retained counsel to review materials and on October 15 due to counsel’s unavailability. The hearing was conducted in French and English, with the parties able to interact directly with the Tribunal in the language of their choice and between themselves with the assistance of an English-French interpreter.
6For the reasons outlined in this decision, I find the 2 Macaques from the shed, the 1 Fennec Fox, the 2 Genets and the 1 Capuchin from in the home were in distress. I find that the 1 juvenile Macaque from inside the home was not in distress and will be the only animal to be returned. The others will not.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
7The issues to be decided are:
a. Were the subject animals in distress on the 21st of August, 2025?
b. If so, was it necessary for AWS to remove the animals to alleviate their distress?
RESULT
8I find that the animals in the shed, being the 2 Macaques, the Female Fennec Fox and the 2 Genets, as well as the 1 Capuchin from in the home were in distress because the appellant was not meeting the basic, wildlife and primate standards of care in the Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements, O. Reg. 444/19 made under the PAWS Act (the “Regulation”). The 1 juvenile Macaque will be returned as it was not in distress.
APPLICABLE LAW
9I considered the Standards of Care in the Regulation alongside the evidence of the hearing. The Board has the authority by virtue of s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act after a hearing regarding a NOR to order animals returned to the owner or custodian when it is of the view that the animals were not in distress, as defined by law.
10The Standards of Care at s. 1(5) of the Regulation requires a standard of care that is adequate and appropriate, or necessary. In Pryde, 2022 ONSC 6632 at paragraph 27 and 33, the Court confirms that the Standards of Care in the Regulation should be read as adequate and appropriate or necessary to the specific animal, having regard to its species, breed and other relevant factors. When basic Standards of Care are not met by the appellant, an animal is to be considered in distress.
11I considered the definition of distress under s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act:
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.
12I also considered the Standards of Care in the Regulation, such as its section 3 regarding basic standards to be met for all animals. All animals require adequate and appropriate food, water, medical attention, care, resting and sleeping area, space to naturally move and exercise, sanitation, ventilation, light and protection from the elements. If the animal is confined to a pen, the pen or enclosure must be in a good state of repair, with safe and non-toxic materials and of a texture or design that will not bruise, cut or otherwise injure the animal and other animals that may pose a danger must not be kept in the same area.
13Section 5 of the Regulation applies to all captive wildlife, such as the appellant’s animals, as they are not domestic animals, and includes requirements that wildlife kept in captivity “must” be provided with adequate and appropriate care, facilities and services to ensure their safety and general welfare. They must be provided a daily routine that facilitates and stimulates natural movement and behaviour. They must also be kept in compatible social groups to ensure welfare.
14Section 6 of the Regulation also applies to captive wildlife and requires that their enclosures be of an adequate and appropriate size to facilitate natural movement and behaviour, be kept at an appropriate distance to not stress other animals, ensure natural growth of the animal. To meet this requirement, the enclosures must have features and furnishings to facilitate and stimulate natural movement and behaviour, shelter from the animals, surfaces and materials to accommodate natural movement, at least an area to hide from spectators and one or more sleeping areas to accommodate all animals in the pen or enclosure at the same time. The materials for the enclosures must also be safe and not-toxic. These enclosures must be locked to prevent unsafe interactions, escape and to prevent people from entering and harming themselves, other than as part of their duties, and to avoid harm to the wildlife.
15Section 7 of the Regulation provides the Standards of Care that relate to captive primates, such as the Appellant’s Macaques and the Capuchin. Every primate must be provided with daily interaction with a care person, a range of daily activities, including foraging or task-oriented feeding methods and interactive furnishings, such as perches, swings and mirrors.
ANALYSIS
16I find that the respondent met its onus at the hearing to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the subject animals were in distress and needed to be removed to alleviate their distress. These animals include 3 Macaques (1 in the home and 2 in the shed), the Female Fennec Fox and the 2 Genets, as well as the 1 Capuchin in the home.
17The Appellant presented submissions on why the animals should not be found to be in distress and requested a return of the animals.
18The Appellant testified that she meant well in dealing with exotic wildlife in her business, some of which were being nursed back to health, and provided support letters from her community to show that they appreciated her work. However, caring for wildlife and primates requires additional care, beyond what domestic animals require, as can be seen in the Standards of Care as defined in the Regulation. Despite these good intentions, the standards of care were not met as it relates to the animals housed in a shed outside that are a subject of this appeal, being 2 Macaques, a Female Fennec Fox and 2 Genets as well as 1 Capuchin in the home.
19The appellant argued that some animals had been received in various states of health, but the Board is concerned with whether the animals were in distress. The cause of the distress is not relevant to the analysis.
20These animals were in distress because the situation they were found in by the AWS veterinarian and the investigators was well below what would be considered adequate and necessary care according to their species and circumstances. I agree with the respondent’s submission that if you take in an animal that is unwell, you need to provide proper full and adequate medical care and meet basic standards of care.
21The appellant testified that she, her family and a staff member did tend to the animals and provided a calendar that they followed for care. The schedule of care that the appellant testified was in place would be good tool in principle. However, what is more probative in this matter, is whether the animals were in a state of distress on the day of investigation because the health of the animals is paramount to the objective of the PAWS Act, not the applicant’s intentions or actions themselves. The appellant’s explanations often centered around outside context, such as the state of the animal prior to being received, their care in other facilities, previous or future plans for medical care with her veterinarian and otherwise.
22I prefer the respondent’s evidence regarding the state of distress of the animals – including the AWS investigators testimony of their observations, and the observations and opinion of the veterinarian - in concluding that the Standards of Care under the Regulation were not met. The veterinarian’s participating expert opinion further explained aspects of care that were not being met as it relates to the animals in the shed that was species specific. I note that the appellant’s testimony regarding the conditions of the shed and home domicile were similar to the details in the veterinarian’s report, which adds credibility, even if some details were disputed. A review of this evidence demonstrate that basic care was often lacking, but that specific wildlife and primate care was not being met as well.
23I find that the removal of the juvenile Macaque in the home domicile was not necessary, as the care level was meeting the Standards of Care. The environment for the Macaque in the home was obviously much different than in the shed, with more lighting, areas of enrichment, supervision from the family and sanitation, that did not persuade me that it was in distress.
Investigation
24The investigation took place on August 21, 2025, with Dr. Pauline Delnatte, the AWS veterinarian, attending onsite with several AWS inspectors, including the witnesses Pryer and Collins, and OPP officers. They investigated the state the animals were in that day and whether they were in distress at the appellant’s property.
25Dr. Delnatte made direct observations and gave a professional opinion that day that many of the animals were in distress and needed to be removed to alleviate distress. She signed a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animals that same day. Based on her findings, the AWS inspectors completed a Notice of Removal of Animals (“NOR”) on August 21, 2025, which was served on the appellant.
26The Macaques, Fennec Fox, Genets and Capuchin were found to be in distress were removed by AWS. I do note that for some other animals onsite that day, compliance orders for the animals were issued to mitigate the distress. Others were not found to be in distress, such as for Tortoises, Spider Monkeys, Cats, a Basset Hound and a Rabbit. She surrendered other animals that were removed, including 1 Lemur, 1 male Fennec Fox, 3 Kinkajous, 1 Serval, and 2 Marmosets.
27The appellant reviewed the NOR and appeals the removal of 3 Japanese Macaques, the 1 Capuchin, the female Fennec Fox, the 2 Genets and 1 Otter (since deceased) that were removed due to their distress.
28I will set out my findings regarding the specific animals that are the subject of this appeal.
The 2 Macaques in the Shed Were in Distress
29I accept the evidence of respondent, especially that of the veterinarian, Dr. Delnatte, that the conditions regarding the two Macaques in the shed where they were housed were insufficient to meet the Standards of Care required. They were in distress and that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.
30The appellant was adamant in her testimony that these Macaques were to be soon transferred to zoo facilities that were adequate and that she had a detailed caring schedule that was in place to ensure their well-being on a short-term basis. She stated she was brokering a deal and was seeking tuberculosis testing before completing the transfer. She viewed the shed as a quarantine location. The appellant argued that the Macaques were not in distress as they were scheduled to be transferred to a facility in Quebec and only appeared to be distressed due to the presence of the new faces of AWS inspectors on that day.
31I assign limited weight to her arguments here given the evidence that I heard. On cross-examination of the appellant, it was clear that these Macaques were not in short-term transit and had been acquired in June 2025. There was no set day for them to be sent away and the Regulation applied on the day of the inspection.
32I find that the Macaques were several weeks in this location and the basic, wildlife and primate Standards of Care under the Regulation applied, but were not being met by the appellant. In particular, I found the investigators’ accounts to be more probative than the general account of the appellant of what she intended. The inspectors founds that the shed was small, dark and crowded. The Macaques were in a small wire cage with unclean sludge at the bottom of the cage, they observed contaminated water, and a mesh floor exposing the animals to the litter and copious amounts of excrement and other organic material. In view of the pictures and detailed account of the shed that day provided in testimony and uncontradicted by the appellant, I accord more weight to the state of the shed being unsanitary, despite the appellant’s testimony showing a proposed cleaning schedule and her arguments that the uncleanliness was exaggerated.
33I agree that cages for the 2 Macaques in the shed were in the dark, without sufficient enrichment or furnishing to meet the Standards of Care for primates. Primates are intelligent and require space sufficient to express their natural behaviours. The pictures showed a ferret size cage with only a soccer ball and a dog bed, no flooring, and feces droppings in the trays below it. I accept the testimony of investigator Collins and the veterinarian that the feces had accumulated to a level that is not adequate for proper care. They both had experience with wildlife facilities and, while it was not clear when the last cleaning had taken place, I find that it was unfit for adequate care due to an uncleanly amount of excrement accumulating and compromising the food and water. This does not meet the basic Standards of Care under the Regulation.
34The veterinarian was equally concerned with the Macaques behaviour as it retreated in the corner, with no hiding space. The behaviour was viewed as abnormal by her and I accept her opinion that the animals were showing behaviour linked to distress, such as biting displacement behaviour or biting to manage emotion. The appellant did not contest that it was highly challenging to load the animals, and it took 40 minutes to load one and they anesthetized the other to transport it safely.
35The Regulation as section 7 is clear that such primates require daily interactions with tools, enrichment, puzzles, swings, mirrors or otherwise to ensure they are properly cared for. I find that this was not the case, despite the appellant’s testimony to the contrary. There were simply no observable signs that this could or was the case given the pictures presented and the accounts by the AWS inspectors from the investigation.
36I accept the testimony of the investigators and the veterinarian that air quality generally was poor in the shed, the lighting was dark, they were not able to move freely, hide, enrich themselves or graze. The veterinarian testified that the ceiling fan was on in the shed, but there was no active ventilation or air exchange and that the AC unit that was off could not provide that ventilation. I accept that the ventilation was poor, even if I do not make any findings regarding ammonia levels due to expired tests. The inspectors and the veterinarian had a difficult time breathing in the shed and had to take breaks, leaving to get masks and fresh air.
37The veterinarian also testified that these Macaques should not be grouped so close and so confined, with other animals because they are known to be Herpes “B” carriers. This shed was not a proper housing situation to mitigate these health risks, along with the concerns for tuberculosis. The appellant testified that she had sought vaccinations for tuberculosis, but I was not persuaded that she had properly considered their health by quarantine with other species. I agree with the veterinarian that this is not proper medical care to house various animals with health concerns in the space so closely to one another. I find that it does not meet the Standards of Care in this regard, such as under section 3 of the Regulation, for basic medical care.
38I find that the two Macaques held in the shed on August 21, 2025, were in distress and their removal was necessary to alleviate distress.
The Female Fennec Fox in the Shed Was in Distress
39The Standards of Care regarding the female Fennec Fox were not being met due to the unsanitary and unsafe cage, along with the concerns about ventilation and unsanitary space of the shed, as noted above. The Fox was in unclean surroundings and the care provided was not species specific. It was in distress.
40The veterinarian explained that this Fox comes from a desert area in northern Africa and is known for nocturnal digging according to the veterinarian and inspector Collins’s testimony
41Two Fennec Foxes were in a small wire cage in the shed, one male and one female. The cage had only one shelf that was covered in fecal matter and one ripped dog bed between the two. The Foxes appeared in thin body condition and were wet with urine and feces. I accept the testimony of inspector Collins that the Fennec Fox was not expressing normal behaviour when they viewed it and it could not hide. Also, the wire cage bottom was not solid and did not provide any opportunity to dig. I also find based on the testimony that there was excrement built up, dirty fur that was not cleared away and no water.
42The medical state of the Foxes was also a sign of distress. I accept the inspectors’ observations that there were lacerations on one of the Foxes and they were unwell. Even though the appellant did testify she was providing medicine, it was unlabeled, which was a concern to the veterinarian as it could lead to improper medical care and I agree. I do not attribute much weight to the appellant’s testimony that she was getting proper medical care, as she did not seem to have a detailed prescription plan for use of this medicine and testified that she called a veterinarian who did not attend on site and had not documented the prescribed medical treatment.
43I find that the sanitation for the Foxes was below the Standards of Care required for wildlife and for basic animal care due to the uncleanliness, the style of cage, the lack of water, and the poor ventilation.
44The appellant testified that a daily cleaning routine was provided for the Foxes. She obtained the female to provide company for the male. She had the female brought in from another location, and it was living for two weeks in the shed. I do not accept that these factors are sufficient to show that care was provided, as it does not reflect in the state of the care that was observed on the date of the investigation.
45I agree with the veterinarian’s opinion that the Foxes and other animals in the shed were kept in close quarters with no safety protocols or secondary cages to move the animals around to clean, inadequate bedding and many of the animals had to stand on the cage wires instead of natural platform that would be safe. I agree with her opinion that the grouping of the animals added to their distress, as no effort was made to keep nocturnal animals (Kinkajous and Foxes) separate from daytime animals (Macaques). There was equally no care in keeping the arid climate animals (Foxes) separate from humid climate animals (Kinkajous).
46I find that the Fennec Foxes were in small wire cages, with thin body condition, apparent injuries, no water or food on a flat platform below them that was clean. It was covered in excrement.
47The Female Fennec Fox was in distress and removal was necessary to alleviate its distress.
The 2 Genets in the Shed Were in Distress
48The Standards of Care regarding the 2 Genets were not being met because they were in a shed, which again, was an unsanitary environment, and inappropriate area for the level of care for this type of wildlife.
49The veterinarian explained that Genets are a nocturnal cat or raccoon like animal from Africa and require tree like habitat for them to express natural behaviours.
50I accept the testimony of the veterinarian, who stated that the enrichment required for this wildlife was lacking, as there ought to be higher climbing areas with branches and otherwise for them to express their tree like behaviours, proper bedding and a secondary enclosure for cleaning and safe handling.
51The pictures showed that the cages did not have a solid bottom which is required for wildlife under the Regulation, to avoid injury, such as bruising from long times spent holding the cage.
52The conditions were not appropriate for a nocturnal animal and that they were not able to express their natural behaviour. They were in a small enclosure, with limited lighting, limited features and furnishing, with no food or water present according to inspector Collins.
53The appellant testified that she was holding the Genets while awaiting vaccinations and before transferring to St. Hyacinthe. I find that this is irrelevant as to whether the Standards of Care were being met.
54Given all of these issues that are below the Standards of Care, I find that the Genets were in distress and removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.
The Juvenile Capuchin in the Home was in Distress
55I accept the veterinarian’s expert evidence that the juvenile Capuchin, raised without a mother, causing developmental difficulties because of maternal deprivation and psychological distress. The appellant testified that she had obtained it without a mother and was bottle feeding several times a day to try and nurse it to health. This attempt is helpful, but I was persuaded that it does not meet the Standards of Care under the Regulation because it causes undue psychological distress to continue to not provide a surrogate or other member of its species.
56The veterinarian testified that the Capuchin should cling on their mother for 1-2 months and require 3 months to play with others. It will typically stay several years with its mother and learn by imitation and copying. There was no alternative provided for this scenario and I find that it caused distress.
57I accept the accuracy of the pictures presented in evidence and inspector Pryer’s testimony that show that the Capuchin was in a black wire cage, with little to no enrichment and a soiled blanket inside. This adds to the psychological distress, as there was limited opportunity to express natural behaviours as required for wildlife and primates.
58The appellant argued that the baby Capuchin was in good health, being bottle fed regularly and was destined to a zoo facility. Generally, she stated that there was no distress given that staff was present on the day of investigation and that caused any observable state of distress. She alleged that the inspectors’ presence disrupted their usual schedule of care. She testified that she and her family and a staff member cared diligently for the Capuchin and that it was fed, watered, cared for and in good health.
59Section 7 of the Standards of Care relates to captive primates and requires that every primate “must” be provided with daily interaction with a care person, a range of daily activities, including foraging or task-oriented feeding methods and interactive furnishings, such as perches, swings and mirrors. I accord little weight to the appellant’s testimony that she was providing puzzles and space for the Capuchin to express on a regular basis. The crate was clearly not adequate for this to happen, and I heard how her husband could not handle a Spider Monkey that had gotten loose in the living room of the home. I am not persuaded that the Capuchin was receiving proper enrichment and a space for natural expression given the evidence heard.
60I find that for the Capuchin, this Standard of Care requires its mother or a surrogate for natural activities to occur as well as a proper environment in order to not cause psychological distress. As this was not the case, the Capuchin was in distress and removal was necessary to alleviate distress.
The Juvenile Macaque in the Home was Not in Distress
61The Standards of Care were being met regarding the juvenile Macaque because I could not find that it was subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.
62Inspectors Pryer and Collins testified to their observations of the housing in the domicile and the general states of housing was not contested by the appellant. The juvenile Macaque was in a small ferret style black cage in the domicile. This cage had a hammock, a leash, a blanket. It was being bottle fed according to the appellant.
63I find that the Macaque in the house had access to a cage in the domicile that was generally better, more spacious, and allowed to express more natural behaviours. The space was generally cleaner and more sanitary. It was better lit and because of the supervision, food and water could be provided.
64The veterinarian did not state that the psychological distress would be the same for this Macaque, given its age. I find that the Macaque did not suffer from psychological distress.
65It had access to more features, such as a swing, a basket, a shelf, and a blanket. There was some uncleanliness according to the investigators, but the Macaque appeared to be in better health than the others in the shed. I find that the Macaque in the home was being cared for adequately.
66I find that the Macaque in the home was not in distress and removal was not necessary to alleviate distress.
ORDER
67Given the above findings:
a. I do not order the return of the 2 Macaques, the 1 female Fennec Fox and 2 Genets that were in the shed, nor the juvenile Capuchin that was in the household domicile.
b. I order the return of the juvenile Macaque that was in the household.
Released: December 16, 2025
Matthew M. Létourneau
Member