OACRB 2026

The appellant's 11 dogs were removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent issued a Decision to Keep and a Statement of Account.

The appellant filed appeals after the prescribed 10-day statutory deadline and brought a motion requesting an extension of time.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacks the statutory authority to extend the prescribed appeal period under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

Consequently, the animals were forfeited to the Crown due to non-payment and failure to appeal within the prescribed time.

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep 9 birds removed from his property, appealed a Statement of Account for their care, and applied for their return.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the birds were kept in unsanitary conditions, lacked adequate space, and required veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal of the decision to keep and the application for return, finding that returning the birds would place them in distress.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $3,268.52 to $1,534.19, removing costs for injuries sustained during removal and adjusting for the Appellant's limited ability to pay.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his appeal of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care.

The appellant argued the Board made errors of law and fact regarding the interpretation of 'distress' under the PAWS Act, relied too heavily on AZA guidelines, and violated procedural fairness.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and no violation of procedural fairness, noting the appellant was attempting to re-litigate the original appeal.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his appeal of a Statement of Account for being filed late.

The appellant argued the Board made a jurisdictional error and violated procedural fairness because the notice he received was insufficient and the Board should have considered his reasons for the delay.

The Board found no error in calculating the time to appeal, noting the appellant provided no evidence that the notice was insufficient.

The Board also confirmed it has no statutory authority to extend the 10-day appeal period.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding five rabbits removed from his property.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of mootness, arguing the rabbits had been automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act because the appellant failed to pay or appeal the Statement of Account within the prescribed timelines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that the forfeiture was final and irreversible, rendering the appeal moot as the rabbits could not be returned.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the lack of an adversarial context or special circumstances.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after her dog was removed due to severe Baclofen toxicity.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in critical distress at the time of removal, justifying the inspector's intervention to provide emergency veterinary care.

However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $3,859.42 to $2,927.60, finding that some hospitalization and boarding charges exceeded reasonable rates or were incurred after the dog was medically ready for discharge.

The appellants filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed their appeal of a Decision to Keep animals as moot.

The original appeal was dismissed because the animals had been forfeited to the Crown after the appellants failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account.

The appellants argued procedural unfairness and error of fact, claiming they were unprepared for the motion hearing and confused about the process as self-represented parties.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no procedural unfairness, as the appellants had notice of the motion and declined more time to prepare.

The Board also found no error of law or fact, noting that forfeiture occurred automatically by statute and the Board lost jurisdiction to order the return of the animals.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal of a Decision to Keep Animals.

The animals had been removed due to distress and subsequently forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act because the appellants failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed time.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Animal Care Review Board found the appeal was moot as it could no longer order the return of the animals.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal and granted the motion to dismiss.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary care costs incurred after her cat was removed to treat a urinary blockage.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive due to a torn urethra during surgery and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the hospital rates were reasonable and the torn urethra was a known complication, not a veterinarian mistake.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $6,810.76 to $5,037.99, reflecting a reduction requested by the respondent for a second opinion, and found the appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The appellant applied for the return of her three animals (one dog, two cats) removed by Animal Welfare Services due to unsanitary conditions and hazardous objects in her home.

She also appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application for return, finding the appellant admitted her home was not yet in compliance with the cleanup order.

The Board varied the Statement of Account, deducting the cost of three vaccines for the dog because the appellant had provided proof of prior vaccination, but upheld the remaining costs as reasonable and found the appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account for veterinary care costs, which he neither paid nor appealed within the statutory deadlines.

Consequently, the dog was forfeited to the Crown by operation of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal, rendering the appeal moot.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the lack of an adversarial context and the need for judicial economy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding three dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the dogs had been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to appeal or pay a Statement of Account within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals and that the appeal was moot with no live controversy.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA#2) for $7,232.13 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of a dog removed from his care.

The Board found that the costs were actually incurred and reasonable.

However, considering the appellant's financial circumstances, including his reliance on social assistance and limited ability to pay, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the SOA by 50%, reducing the amount owed to $3,616.06.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of lambs born in care after the appellant's animals were removed.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the first invoice accurately reflected boarding fees, but the second invoice appeared to reflect animal care costs rather than boarding fees.

The Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the total amount payable from $1,639.63 to $1,261.08.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a prior decision that confirmed a Statement of Account and dismissed the application for the return of his dog.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness, errors of fact, reliance on false evidence, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the request, finding that the appellant had declined additional time for late disclosure, failed to request accommodation, and merely disagreed with the Board's weighing of veterinary evidence.

The Board also found that the allegedly false evidence was not relied upon and the new evidence did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed the removal of eight Chihuahua type dogs by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with three compliance orders requiring veterinary care for puppies exposed to parvovirus and other basic care standards.

The Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal due to the appellant's non-compliance with the orders and the abandonment of the dogs in a vehicle following the appellant's arrest.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to alleviate the dogs' distress and declined to order their return.

The appellant appealed the removal of her three dogs and the subsequent decision to keep them in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The dogs were found confined in the appellant's van in unsanitary conditions, with high ammonia levels and no access to water.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that returning them to the appellant would likely place them back in distress, given her history of non-compliance with care standards.

The appeals were dismissed and the dogs were ordered to remain in the respondent's care.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that reduced a Statement of Account from $23,420.25 to $5,855.06.

The appellant sought to introduce a 2024 income tax assessment to further support her claim of financial hardship.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the tax document was available at the time of the original hearing and did not constitute new evidence.

The Board noted that the original decision had already considered the appellant's financial circumstances.

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of his cat, Odin, who was removed by Animal Welfare Services after the applicant's other cat died from falling off a 24th-floor balcony.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the conditions leading to Odin's removal had ceased to exist.

Specifically, the applicant had not addressed the balcony hazard and lacked a credible plan to provide necessary veterinary care for Odin's multiple health issues.

The application for the return of the animal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Non-Compliance and applied to revoke an Order issued under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act regarding the care of her animals.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, Animal Welfare Services revoked the Order.

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings for mootness.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board found the matters were moot because the revocation eliminated any live controversy and left the Board without a statutory remedy to grant.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot matters, citing judicial economy and its limited statutory jurisdiction.