OACRB 2025

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of 33 Boston Terriers removed by Animal Welfare Services due to distress.

The respondent provided extensive veterinary evidence demonstrating the dogs were kept in unsanitary conditions with high ammonia levels and suffered from untreated medical issues, including severe ocular disease and wounds from fighting.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence to show the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that returning the dogs would place them in distress.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and applied for the return of her dog and its puppies.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeal and application on the basis that the animals had been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to appeal or pay two Statements of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals following their automatic forfeiture under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, rendering the matters moot.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that the dog had been statutorily forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, extinguishing the appellant's ownership rights.

The Board applied the Borowski test for mootness, found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the forfeited dog, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for $6,984.26 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the boarding and veterinary care of her two dogs, which were removed due to distress.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the respondent established the costs were actual, necessary to relieve the dogs' distress, and reasonable based on veterinary fee guides.

The Statement of Account was confirmed in full.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services for 33 Boston Terriers.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with previous orders requiring veterinary care and improvements to unsanitary and hazardous living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress due to a lack of food, water, sanitary living conditions, and necessary veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the removal was necessary to alleviate the dogs' distress.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $15,129.72 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of removing, boarding, and providing veterinary care for a flock of approximately 40 sheep.

The Board found that the costs were reasonable and reflected the actual costs of necessaries provided to the sheep, which were found in dire health conditions.

The appellant failed to provide evidence that the costs were excessive.

The Board confirmed the SOA.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs related to two dogs removed from his care.

The Board found that the costs were actual, necessary, and reasonable.

However, based on the appellant's uncontested evidence of limited financial means, the Board varied the SOA, reducing the amount owed by 50 percent to $1,245.20.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her dog, which had been removed due to critical distress.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to return an animal once forfeited, rendering the appeal moot.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her flock of approximately 40 sheep in care.

The sheep had been removed after the appellant failed to comply with an order to provide adequate feed and veterinary care.

Veterinary evidence established that the sheep were suffering from severe starvation, anemia, and a high parasite load due to prolonged neglect.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe it was necessary to keep the sheep in care to relieve their distress and that they would likely be placed back in distress if returned to the appellant, given her failure to recognize their dire health condition and unwillingness to change her husbandry practices.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after the appellant failed to comply with an order to provide veterinary treatment for birth complications.

The appellant appealed the compliance order but failed to appeal or pay the subsequent Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

As a result, the dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that the appeal was moot because the forfeiture was irreversible and the Board had no jurisdiction to order the return of the animal.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Decision to Keep in Care regarding her dog, and filed an Application for Return.

However, she failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals and application.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.

The Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog following forfeiture, rendering the appeals and application moot.

The appellants appealed an order issued under s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, which accompanied the return of their horse.

The appellants argued the horse was not in distress at the time of return because the boarding facility had been approved by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board confirmed the order, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the horse would be returned to a state of distress based on the appellants' history of poor operational and financial planning, as well as ongoing credibility concerns.

The Board held that returning an animal with an order is justified when there are reasonable grounds to believe distress would reappear upon return.

The appellant appealed the removal of 10 exotic animals from her property by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the decision to retain them and two statements of account for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of appropriate food and water, and inadequate veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, denied the application for the return of the animals, and confirmed the statements of account totalling $12,241.39, finding the costs reasonable and necessary.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a decision to keep 72 cats and 1 dog in its care.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot because 65 cats and 1 dog had been forfeited to the Crown after the appellant failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account within the statutory timeframes.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the forfeited animals.

The appeal was allowed to proceed only with respect to 7 kittens born in care, which were not subject to the Statement of Account and had not been forfeited.

The applicant sought the return of two dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services due to their thin body condition and untreated wounds.

The dogs were kept in care after the applicant failed to comply with an order requiring a veterinary examination.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the ability to meet the dogs' ongoing veterinary and shelter needs, particularly given her current housing instability and financial constraints.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her diabetic cat was removed due to lack of medical treatment.

The appellant argued she could not afford the treatment at the time but her financial situation had since improved.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and fell below standard veterinary fee guidelines.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the amount of $6,230.33, finding no basis to reduce it given the appellant's improved financial circumstances.

The appellant appealed a compliance order and the subsequent removal of her flock of approximately 40 sheep by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the flock was in distress due to lack of proper nutrition, veterinary care, and unsanitary living conditions.

The appellant failed to comply with the compliance order within the specified timeframe.

The Board confirmed the compliance order, found the removal was necessary and in accordance with the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, and dismissed the appeal, making no order for the return of the flock.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to permit evidence admitted in an appeal of a Notice of Removal to be treated as admitted in a subsequent Application for Return proceeding involving the same 33 dogs.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion pursuant to section 15.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding it appropriate given the proceedings involved the same animals and arose out of the same circumstances.

The Appellant requested reconsideration of a decision rejecting his appeal of a Statement of Account related to his dog.

The appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the 10-business day legislative time period.

The Appellant argued that his health issues caused confusion regarding timelines and that procedural fairness warranted accepting the late filing.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the request, finding it had no jurisdiction to extend the statutory appeal period and noting the Appellant had successfully filed nine other appeals during the same period.

The appellants appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring them to take their dog, Kylo, to a veterinarian and provide documentation.

The appellants sought revocation of the order on the basis that the dog had gone missing while hunting coyotes in Alberta and was presumed dead.

The respondent agreed to revoke the order as it related to the dog, given that the dog was either deceased or no longer in the appellants' custody.

The Board revoked the order.