16410, 16411/ACRB
Appeals under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Rudolf Steinberg
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair
For the Appellant:
Rene Larson, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Aisha Amode, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: December 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16, 2024
BACKGROUND
1The Appellant, Rudolf Steinberg, is the owner of two horses, a mare and a stallion (the horses), that previously resided at the Appellant’s property in Neebing, Ontario (Property).
2On August 19, 2024, Animals Welfare Services (AWS) received a complaint regarding the horses. As a result, Inspector Rebecca Merritt of AWS visited the Property on August 21, 2024 and September 5, 2024 to conduct an inspection. The Appellant declined access to his Property, therefore, AWS obtained a warrant to inspect the Property under s. 28 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act).1
3On September 25, 2024, Inspector Merritt executed the warrant and noted some concerns, which led AWS to serve two Orders on the Appellant pursuant to s. 30(1) of the PAWS Act. Inspector Merritt also had a live video call with a veterinarian, Dr. Kyle Goldie, who assessed the horses while the inspection was taking place.
4The first Order was for the mare and it required the Appellant to complete the following by October 2, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.:
- Have the mare examined by a veterinarian with special attention to:
i. Body condition score – low;
ii. Dental profile;
iii. Parasites;
iv. Potential pregnancy care; and
v. Hoof care and management plan.
Provide Inspector Merritt with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the examination findings, and the treatments recommended and undertaken by the veterinarian, as well as a statement of treatments the Appellant has carried out at home according to the veterinarian’s recommendation. As part of this requirement, the Appellant was to have the veterinarian develop an individualized feeding plan, to be followed by the Appellant.
Provide the mare with adequate and appropriate food and water.
Provide access to a salt block.
Provide an adequate and appropriate enclosed area for the mare with a design that will not bruise, cut, or otherwise injure the mare.
Provide grooming to remove all burrs.
Provide access at any given time to shelter that protects from the elements, including harmful temperatures.
5The second Order was for the stallion, and it was identical to the Order for the mare, except that the Appellant was not required to have the stallion examined by a veterinarian with special attention to potential pregnancy care.
6On October 3, 2024, AWS attended the Property once again to check compliance with the two Orders. Veterinarian Dr. Matt Matyazovsky was present as well and he determined that removal of the horses was necessary to relieve distress due to their emaciated conditions and because no food or water was readily available to the horses.
7Accordingly, on October 3, 2024, a Notice of Removal (NOR) was served on the Appellant pursuant to sections 31(1) (a) and (c) of the PAWS Act. .On October 21, 2024, AWS issued a Notice of Decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to Keep an Animal(s) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (DTK) for the horses pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
8Also on October 21, 2024, the Appellant was served with a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $1,579.72 for costs incurred in caring for the horses pursuant to s. 35 of the PAWS Act. As of the date of this hearing, no further SOAs have been served on the Appellant.
9The Appellant appealed the following to the Animal Care Review Board (Board):
ACRB FILE NO.
AWS Instrument
ACRB file number 16336
Order regarding the mare
ACRB file number 16337
Order regarding the stallion
ACRB file number 16369
NOR for both horses
ACRB file number 16410
DTK for both horses
ACRB file number 16411
SOA for both horses
10On November 8, 2024, the parties participated in a case conference in relation to the appeals of the DTK and SOA, and the Board combined the above files together pursuant to clause 9.1(1)(a) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (SPPA):
11The appeal for all five Board files proceeded by way of a videoconference hearing and closing submissions were submitted in writing on December 23, 2024.
ISSUES
12The issues in dispute are:
Were there reasonable grounds to believe the horses were in distress on September 25, 2024, the date the Orders were issued? Should the Orders be confirmed, revoked, or modified?
Were the horses in distress on October 3, 2024, the date of their removal? If so, was it necessary to remove the horses to relieve their distress?
Have the conditions that caused the horses to be removed ceased to exist such that the horses can be returned to the Appellant?
Should the October 21, 2024, SOA be confirmed, varied, or revoked?
Is the Appellant entitled to costs for complying with the Orders?
RESULT
13For the reasons that follow, I find:
There were reasonable grounds to believe that the horses were in distress on September 25, 2024, and correspondingly the Orders are confirmed;
There were reasonable grounds to believe that the horses were in distress on the date of their removal. As such, it was necessary to remove the horses to relieve them from distress;
The conditions that caused the horses to be removed have not ceased to exist and the horses should not be returned to the Appellant;
The October 21, 2024, SOA in the amount of $1,579.72 is confirmed; and
The Appellant is not entitled to costs under s. 38(9)4 of the PAWS Act.
ANALYSIS
The horses were in distress on September 25, 2024, and the Orders are confirmed
14For the reasons that follow, I find that the horses were in distress on September 25, 2024, as the conditions they were living in at the Property did not meet the prescribed standards under the PAWS Act or the Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements Regulation, O.Reg.444/19 (Regulation). The Board also finds that the removal of the horses was necessary to relieve their distress.
15Section 1 of the PAWS Act defines distress as:
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
16Section 3 of Regulation sets out basic standards of care for all animals. The Regulations state that every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate food and water, care for its general welfare, a proper resting and sleeping area, sanitary conditions, protection from the elements, and adequate space, light, and ventilation.
17Owners of animals are required to comply with the minimum standards prescribed in the PAWS Act and in the Regulation. If they do not, the animals are by definition “in distress” (Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632, para 52).
18The Respondent’s position was that the horses were in distress on September 24, 2024, based on Inspector Merritt’s testimony. Inspector Merritt testified that when she attended the Property on the morning of September 25, 2024, she observed the mare and the stallion in an emancipated state with their spines, rib, and hip bones visible. She further testified that upon walking around the Property, she was unable to locate any clean drinking water. She did observe a trough with thick green liquid at the bottom, and there was only one round bale of hay available for the horses. The Property also had random objects scattered throughout, including hazardous materials such as barbed wire, metal scraps, broken-down vehicles, and other sharp objects, which could injure the horses.
19Based on her observations, Inspector Merritt called Dr. Goldie on Teams to virtually assess the horses. Dr. Goldie agreed that the horses appeared to be emaciated. However, during her testimony, Dr. Goldie stated that while she was confident the horses’ body scores were around 3.0, she was not able to palpate the animals and, therefore, she recommended that the mare and stallion be taken to a veterinary clinic for further examination.
20Concerning the horses’ teeth, Dr. Goldie stated that while on Teams she could see that the horses were eating comfortably, but due to their thin body conditions she was concerned they may need dental care in terms of “floating teeth”, which she explained would require removing sharp parts along the upper and lower arcade of the teeth. Dr. Goldie was also concerned about the number of burrs in the horses’ mane, ears, and tail, as burrs can tighten around the hair if they are not removed, leading to irritation of the skin. In terms of the horses’ living conditions, Dr. Goldie testified that she saw a number of hazards around the Property that could injure or harm the horses including cans, barbed wires, electric fences, etc.
21When questioned about the availability of water on site, Dr. Goldie was shown a picture of the pond that was said to be a water source for the horses, and based on the murkiness of the water she testified that this did not meet the definition of clean drinking water. Dr. Goldie testified that a reservoir of standing water leads to an accumulation of bacteria, so it would not be proper for the horses. On cross-examination, it was suggested that the water was murky from clay content and that it was safe to drink, but Dr. Goldie firmly stated that a water source cannot be still as it would lead to bacterial growth and potential harm.
22I was persuaded by Dr. Goldie’s testimony regarding a lack of food or potable water on site, as well as the random objects and hazardous objects littered around the Property, and found that her observations, as well as the photographic evidence, supported the Respondent’s position that the horses were in distress.
23The Appellant disputed that the Property was hazardous to the horses or that it lacked food, water, salt lick, and other essentials for care. The Appellant testified that the purported “junk” at the Property all had a purpose, and it was mainly spare parts or items for when he needed a replacement as he lived out in the country. The Appellant stated that the horses had access to the yard for many years and had never injured themselves with any such items. When shown a picture of a barrel that was said to contain drinking water (which was extremely green and murky), the Appellant stated it must have been a combination of feed and rainwater and the horses would “know better than to drink it”. Also, in terms of proper feed, the Appellant testified that he would keep one hay bail out, but there were more hay bales in the yard pasture. However, it was evident from the photographic evidence that this additional feed was not accessible to the horses.
24In terms of the horses’ poor body conditions, the Appellant testified that in the spring he had separated the mare and stallion to avoid the risk of pregnancy, and this separation had led both of them to deteriorate and lose a significant amount of weight. He stated that once he put the horses back together in or around June 2024, their condition was improving. He disagreed that the horses were in distress and argued that AWS had not examined his Property sufficiently for food and water.
25Despite the Appellant’s position, the photographic evidence provided by the Respondent, as well as the testimony of the Inspectors and Veterinarians, all demonstrated that the conditions the horses were being in kept were not safe. There were sharp and hazardous objects littered throughout the Property, a lack of accessible food, and drinking water was either absent or not potable. The evidence supported the Orders being issued to relieve the horses’ distress.
26For all these reasons, I find that the horses were in distress at the time the Orders were issued. The Respondent’s evidence shows the Appellant kept his horses in unsafe conditions, and they lacked proper care that fell short of what is required under the PAWS Act and Regulation.
Removal of the horses from the Property was necessary to relieve their distress
27I find that the removal of the horses on October 3, 2024, from the Property was necessary to relieve them of distress and complied with s. 31(1) of the PAWS Act.
28Section 31(1) of the PAWS Act provides authority to AWS inspectors to remove and take possession of an animal in distress under certain conditions including:
A veterinarian has advised the inspector in writing that the removal of the horses was necessary to relieve the animal(s) distress as required by s. 31(1)(a); and
Under s. 31(1)I, Orders that were issued by AWS under s. 30 of the have not been complied with.
29Inspector Merritt testified that she visited the Property again on October 3, 2024, to ensure compliance with the Orders. The Appellant was not seen at the Property throughout the entirety of the inspection. During this follow-up inspection, Inspector Merritt testified that she observed the following:
The horses and their water trough had been moved to an area fenced with barbed wire;
The Property was still covered with hazardous and sharp objects;
The horses no longer had burrs, and it appeared a lot of their hair had been cut off;
The horses body conditions were still low and had not improved; and
There was no food or water available in the fenced area where the horses were being kept.
30On October 3, 2024, Dr. Matyazovszky also attended the Property with the Inspectors in order to assess the condition of the horses. Dr. Matyazovszky testified that when he approached the horses, he noticed the water trough was empty and there was only some loose hay that had been stomped on, which was not sufficient feed for the horses. He stated that while horses can also feed on grass, it would have to be good quality and, in this case, there was not enough plant material in the fenced area for the horses to graze especially given their emaciated condition.
31Upon examining the horses, Dr. Matyazovszky testified that he believed the horses were in distress due to their poor body conditions and lack of available food and water. He stated that the stallion was underweight as you could see his ribs and pelvis protruding, and he had a body score of 2 out of 9 based on the body scoring chart in the Equine Code of Practice.2 Also, the mare was very thin and Dr. Matyazovszky determined her body score to be between 1-1.5 out of 9 as per the Equine Code of Practice. Dr. Matyazovszky stated that ideally, you would want the horses to have a body score of 4 according to the guidelines.
32Based on the conditions observed on October 3, 2024, Dr. Matyazovszky stated that he did not think the horses would survive the winter if they remained at the Property. Dr. Matyazovszky testified that he believed the horses were in distress on the date of removal, and he signed a veterinarian’s Certificate advising that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.
33The Appellant provided no evidence that the conditions and environment at the Property were anything other than that shown by the Respondent on October 3, 2024. The Appellant did not agree that the horses were in distress or that they needed to be removed. When asked what steps he had taken to comply with the Orders, the Appellant testified that he cared for the horses himself and did not agree that a veterinary examination was required for what was going on because the horses’ low body scores were a result of their separation and would gradually improve.
34The Appellant testified about having more than 40 years of experience caring for horses and claimed that his grandfather had taught him all the skills as a third-generation farmer. He testified that he would check the horses’ teeth himself, provide his own hoof care, as well as deworm the horses twice a year. As for pregnancy care, he stated that would require an increased ration of oats, second grow hay, and flax seed. The Appellant admitted that he did not feel the need to attend a veterinarian clinic and claimed he was managing the horses' condition on his own by feeding them high quality hay that he would grow organically himself.
35In terms of the horses' food and water supply, the Appellant testified that the barrel had water in it before he left that day, and upon returning to the Property he would have replenished the water and food supply. However, Dr. Matyazovszky explained during cross-examination that horses that are emaciated and have such low body scores as the mare and stallion would need to have feed available to them at all times.
36I do not accept the Appellant’s position that the horses were not in distress or that they had sufficient food and water. It is clear from the materials filed by the Respondent and the testimony of Dr. Matyazovszky that the horses had not received routine care for some time, including proper nourishment, hoof care, dental care, parasitic care, or prenatal care. I also accept Dr. Matyazovszky’s testimony that horses with extremely low body scores would need a continual supply of food and clean potable water available to them, and seeing as how the Appellant would often leave the Property, he could have taken additional steps to leave more food and water as required by the Orders.
37In terms of compliance with the Orders, the Appellant admitted during oral testimony that all he had done was remove some of the burrs from the horses’ coats. He also stated that he did not feel veterinarian care was necessary because he could provide dental, parasite, and hoof care himself as he had always done.
38I find that the Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the care he provided on his own was sufficient to relieve them from distress. The Appellant’s testimony was that he had taken no steps towards compliance other than relocating the horses and removing some of the burrs from their coats, which clearly shows a lack of compliance. The finding of distress and issuance of Orders from AWS should have alerted the Appellant to visit a veterinarian as the care provided was not sufficient, and it should have also alerted the Appellant to take greater care to ensure that deficiencies such as a lack of water and appropriate bedding should always be compliant.
39I placed more weight on the testimony of Dr. Matyazovszky, which confirmed that the hazardous conditions at the Property, the emaciated state of the horses, and the lack of food and water supply at the Property fell below the minimum and acceptable standard of care required by the PAWS Act and Regulation. Overall, the Board finds that a higher level of attention was required to ensure that the horses were not in distress. Furthermore, removal of the horses was necessary to relieve the horses of distress due to the veterinarian’s written assessment and lack compliance with the Orders issued on September 25, 2024.
The DTK was necessary to relieve the horses of distress and the horses will not be returned to the Appellant
40For the reasons that follow, the Respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that there were sufficient grounds to issue the DTK and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the horses would be placed in an environment causing, or leading to, distress if returned to the Appellant and the Property.
41On October 21, 2024, Regional Supervisor Tracy Lapping issued the DTK to the Appellant based on the following:
I have determined that keeping the listed animal(s) in the care of the CAWI is necessary to relieve the animal’s/animals’ distress; and
I have reasonable grounds to believe that the above-mentioned animal(s) may be placed in distress if returned to you.
42Supervisor Lapping provided the reasons for her decision in the DTK to be:
The two (2) horses who are subject to this notice require medical care and nutritional support as directed by the examining veterinarian to address the identified distress. Despite the owner being served orders under s. 30(1) of the PAWS Act to alleviate the distress, the order was not complied with. As a result, the horses were removed under s. 31(1)(a) and (c) of the PAWS Act. The horses are being provided with care as recommended by their attending veterinarian. Observations made by various witnesses are indicative these horses were not provided care as outlined by Ontario Regulation 444-19 or the National Farm Animal Council Code of Practice for the care and Handling of Equines.
43During the hearing, Supervisor Lapping testified that the witnesses referred to in the DTK above were Inspector Merritt and Inspector Durr, as well as Dr. Goldie and Dr. Matyasovszky, all of whom confirmed that the horses were in distress at the time the NOR and DTK were issued.
44Supervisor Lapping stated that in deciding to issue the DTK she reviewed the Orders, NOR, photographs, and videos of the horses taken during inspections, veterinarian reports and certificates, and the duty notes of both Inspector Durr and Inspector Merritt. Based on this material, Supervisor Lapping determined that the horses were in distress, caused by a wide range of issues, and it would be best to keep them in the Respondent’s care to provide ongoing care and medical supervision. The main issues affecting the decision to issue to DTK were:
Thin body condition of the horses, which were both emaciated and had a body score below 3 out of 9;
No food or water was available at the Property;
Lack of compliance with AWS Orders and no steps taken by the Appellant to alleviate the distress;
The horses required medical supervision and ongoing care which must be supervised by a veterinarian; and
There were unsafe living conditions and hazardous materials at the Property.
45Supervisor Lapping testified that based on the inspections and the veterinarian reports, it was her opinion that the horses were in distress on October 3, 2024, and it was necessary to keep the horses in Respondent’s care to relieve this distress. She also testified that she believed returning the horses to the Appellant would place them back into a situation of distress because there were reasonable grounds to believe the Orders were still not complied with and ongoing veterinary care was required.
46On October 3, 2024, when AWS attended for a follow-up inspection at the Property, Dr. Matyasovszky determined that the horses required ongoing care due to their extremely low body condition scores (1-2 out of 9). In his expert report, Dr. Matyasovszky even stated that “it was clear that the basic requirements for feed and water were not being met. The extremely thin body condition of the horses indicated that lack of feed and water had been a long-term problem and would not change in the future”.
47On October 7, 2024, after the NOR was issued, Dr. Matyasovszky examined the horses at their new location and noted that they were both eating well. He continued to provide follow up care to the horses and recommended a specific feeding plan to ensure the horses gained weight and had proper nutrients. Inspector Merritt also testified that she would check on the horses every few weeks at the new location and she saw their body conditions increase steadily since removal.
48Despite AWS’ involvement, the Appellant did not take the horses to a veterinary clinic, either before the Orders were issued or after. Inspector Merritt had ongoing communication with him expressing concerns about the horses’ emaciated state, but the Appellant did not take any steps to rectify the situation.
49I find the Respondent’s evidence compelling, especially Dr. Matyasovszky’s opinion that confirmed the horses required additional care including proper nourishment, dental care, hoof care, de-worming for parasites, and possible pregnancy care for the mare. The testimony and documentary evidence demonstrated to my satisfaction that following removal, the horses were receiving appropriate care for their medical issues, including dental work, farrier work, deworming and vaccinations, and that their body scores were improving.
50The Appellant provided no evidence to show that he could or would provide the level of care required to improve the horses’ conditions or that the hazardous conditions at his Property had been remedied in any way. In fact, the Appellant seemed to disagree that the horses were in distress at all, or that the objects around his Property posed a risk because as he said “the horses had never injured themselves”. The Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that he could provide the care and conditions required to ensure the horses would not be in distress if returned to the Property. The state of the Property, as evidenced in the photographs, was such that it was littered with hazardous objects which according to all of the witnesses (other than the Appellant himself) posed a risk of injury.
51The Appellant in closing submissions stated that the Equine Code of Practice is not a “standard of care” prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and does not apply to appeals before the Board. I disagree. Both veterinarians testified that the Equine Code of Practice is a guide for the care of horses and can be used to determine their body condition scores. While it is not binding, it provides a tool to reference horses' body conditions and the scale was explained during the examination of Dr. Goldie and Dr. Matyasovszky. Therefore, I do not accept the Appellant’s argument that it should be disregarded because it is a non-statutory instrument. While the Board is not bound by the Equine Code of Practice, it can certainly refer to it in considering appeals related to equines as a reference point along with the expert testimony; as was done in this case.
52In summary, I was not persuaded by the Appellant’s evidence that the horses were not in distress or that the horses would not be placed in distress if returned to him for various reasons including the following:
The Appellant disagrees that the horses were in distress in the first place, which is not in line with the evidence presented at the hearing or the Board’s determination of distress above;
The Appellant consistently stated that he was not in agreement to use veterinary services and that he could care for the horses himself, which shows a lack of willingness to comply with the Orders;
The Appellant continued to insist at the hearing that adequate food and water was available at the Property, including an additional water dugout in the east pasture that AWS had not seen. However, the evidence clearly shows that at every inspection the horses did not have water or food readily available to them and they were often fenced in so they could not roam the yard as stated by the Appellant. Dr. Matyasovszky testified that due to the horses low body scores, they would need a consistent supply of food and water, so for the trough/barrel to be empty at any point was unacceptable. Dr. Goldie also testified that a standing body of water (such as the dugouts referred to by the Appellant) would not satisfy the requirement of clean potable water; and
The Appellant also disputes the guidelines in the Equine Code of Practice, which makes specific recommendations for additional care when horses are emaciated and has guidelines on suitable shelter and fencing for horses with poor body conditions.
53The PAWS Act, Regulation, and Equine Code of Practice all provide guidelines on standards of care for horses in terms of appropriate food and water supply, shelter, and environmental conditions. The Appellant testified on his own behalf and did not call any expert witnesses. He testified that he became aware of the Equine Code of Practice after AWS’ involvement, but he maintained his position that the horses were not in distress and he did not feel the need to use a veterinarian because he was confident that he could provide the best care to his animals. While the Equine Code of Practice is not an authority on the standard of care required for horses, the evidence and testimony of both veterinarians confirmed that the condition they saw at the Property fell below the acceptable standards of care, and I accepted their uncontradicted evidence in this regard.
54I find the Respondent’s evidence compelling that it was necessary for Supervisor Lapping to issue the DTK on October 21, 2024, in order to relieve the horses’ distress, especially due to the ongoing medical issues identified by both veterinarians. I also find that CAWI had reasonable grounds to believe that the horses would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant. I therefore dismiss the appeal of the DTK and decline to order that the horses be returned to the Appellant because there is insufficient evidence that the conditions that caused the horses to be removed have been corrected.
The SOA dated October 21, 2024, for $1,579.72 is confirmed
55The October 21, 2024 SOA is confirmed in the amount of $1,579.72.
56The Respondent has the initial evidentiary burden to show that the costs in the SOA were reasonable and necessary, and I find that it has met this burden.
57The Respondent went through the costs set out in the October 21, 2024 SOA in detail, line by line, and through the two invoices that formed the basis of veterinary care for the horses.
58The October 21, 2024 SOA totaling $1,579.72 included the following costs:
Transportation for both horses from the Property to the Boarding facility at $200 hourly for 1.5 hours plus tax– total $339;
Costs of boarding for both horses at $40/day each for 5 days (October 4-8, 2024) – total $400; and
Veterinary costs provided on October 3 and 7, 2024, for both horses including the initial assessment, follow-up assessment, treatments, and vaccinations – total $840.72.
59In terms of the first invoice, Dr. Matyasovszky testified that he initially examined the horses on October 3, 2024, when he attended the Property for the follow-up inspection. He explained that the call fee of $92.00 covers time and gas costs to drive to the Property, and the assessment of the mare and stallion that day cost $309.00.
60In terms of the second invoice, Dr. Matyasovszky assessed the horses post-removal at the boarding facility on October 7, 2024. This included another call fee for driving to the facility at $103.00, which he explained was because the facility was located a bit further. The Mare was sedated to perform an ultrasound, which led to a finding that she was not pregnant. It was confirmed the horses would need to follow a proper feeding program, which would be increased weekly, hooves and teeth were checked as well and follow up work was required. Fecal samples were obtained to assess the horses’ parasite burden, and this showed they both required deworming and additional medication. The horses were also vaccinated at this appointment. The total cost of assessing the mare was $120.00 and the total cost of assessing the stallion was also $120.00, all which was explained in detail and evidenced in the invoices.
61The Appellant requested that the SOA be revoked but did not provide any evidence supporting his request.
62The Appellant disputed the SOA on the basis that the animals were not in distress, should not have been removed, and the search warrant was obtained illegally, and the Inspectors and Veterinarians were “all wrong” in their assessment of the horses.
63I have found that the horses were in distress on October 3, 2024, that removal of the horses was necessary due to ongoing distress, and that the removal resulted in the provision of necessaries to relieve the distress. Therefore, I do not accept the Appellant's argument that there was no basis for issuing the SOA.
64The Appellant did not challenge or argue the reasonableness of the costs on the SOA, nor did he argue or file any evidence of his financial circumstances or lack of ability to pay.
65Therefore, the Board was not persuaded that the SOA should be revoked or varied as the Appellant did not provide any basis for doing so.
66For these reasons, I confirm the SOA in the amount of $1,579.72.
Costs
67In closing submissions, the Appellant requested partial costs in the amount of $10,000 to cover the costs of complying with the Orders.
68Section 38(9)4 of the PAWS Act permits the Board to order that the whole or any part of the cost to the owner or custodian of an animal of complying with an order made under s. 30 be paid by the Minister to the owner or custodian.
69Given my finding above that the Orders were not complied with, as well as the lack of evidence to substantiate the Appellant’s request for costs, no costs shall be awarded to the Appellant.
ORDER
70Pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the Act, I:
Dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of both Orders dated September 25, 2024, one relating to the mare and one relating to the stallion;
Dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR for both horses;
Dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of the DTK and decline to order a return of the horses;
Confirm the SOA dated October 21, 2024;
Order the Appellant to pay $1,579.72 to the Minister of Finance; and
Find that the Appellant is not entitled to costs under s. 38(9)4. of the PAWS Act.
Released: February 5, 2025
Ziba Heydarian, Vice Chair