Tribunals ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Robert Coad
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Robert Coad, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Yun (Alice) Liu, Counsel
Heard by teleconference: October 2 and November 4, 2025
INTRODUCTION
1In August 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to Robert Coad (Appellant), requiring him to pay $20,938.65 in costs related to the care of one adult cat and six kittens. The adult cat was removed from the Appellant’s care in June 2025, while the kittens were born in care to a cat that was previously removed from the Appellant’s property and remained in the Respondent’s care.
2Mr. Coad appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) and seeks to have it revoked or varied on the basis that the boarding and veterinary charges are excessive and unreasonable. He argues that the Respondent’s negligence caused the cats’ distress, that the Respondent should have sourced a less expensive veterinarian, and that the kittens’ boarding fees are excessive because they had not yet been weaned from their mother.
3The Respondent seeks to have a reduced amount of $16,913.65 confirmed, which it argues reflects actual and reasonable costs of care. The new amount reflects a reduction of $4,025.00 in boarding fees for the kittens, which resulted from recent negotiations with the facility.
ISSUE
4Should the SOA dated August 14, 2025 be confirmed, revoked or varied?
RESULT
5The SOA is varied, and the Appellant is ordered to pay $15,293.95 to the Minister of Finance.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Revised hearing schedule and extended disclosure timelines
6The hearing in this matter commenced on October 2, 2025, but was not completed due to:
A delayed start to the hearing day in order to accommodate the completion of a different hearing involving the same parties; and
The Appellant needing to leave the teleconference earlier than the scheduled end time due to scheduling restrictions at the detention center from where he was attending the hearing.
7The parties had previously agreed that the Respondent would call evidence first. On October 2, 2025, the Appellant requested an adjournment of the hearing. He stated that he had been transferred to a different detention center and no longer had access to documentation and notes he needed to cross-examine the Respondent’s witnesses. The additional time would give him an opportunity to obtain those notes.
8After the Respondent completed the examination-in-chief of its first witness, I ruled on the Appellant’s request by denying the adjournment but permitting the Appellant to defer his cross-examination of the Respondent’s witnesses to the second hearing day. To ensure the parties made productive use of the remaining hearing time on October 2, 2025, I ordered the Respondent to call its other witnesses that day, and to make its witnesses available for cross-examination when the hearing resumed. The Respondent had no objection to this arrangement and the parties agreed to return on November 4, 2025.
9On October 2, 2025, the Respondent also indicated that the Appellant had not provided any disclosure. I granted the Appellant an extension and ordered him to provide disclosure to the Respondent and file his materials with the Board by October 22, 2025. I made this order due to the exceptional circumstances in this case, including the Appellant’s limited access to technology and communication tools while in custody, which impacted his ability to arrange for witnesses and will say statements, and the Appellant’s anticipated release from custody in mid-October.
10Despite the extension of time, the Appellant did not provide disclosure or file a document book with the Board. As explained below, the Appellant also left the hearing before its completion and did not testify.
Appellant’s departure from the hearing
11The hearing resumed on November 4, 2025 with the evidence of Dr. Kyle Goldie, an expert in veterinary medicine, who was called by the Respondent to opine on whether the veterinary care provided to the animals was necessary and whether the charges were reasonable.
12During this portion of the hearing, the Appellant took issue with my request that he refrain from interrupting Respondent’s counsel during submissions related to the admissibility of Dr. Goldie’s evidence, and abruptly left the teleconference. He returned shortly after the Board’s case management officer contacted him.
13The Appellant then left the hearing a second time after disagreeing with one of my rulings. More specifically, I denied the Appellant’s motion that the Board strike Dr. Goldie’s evidence because Dr. Goldie had declined to express an opinion on vendor selection practices and which veterinarian AWS should have retained to examine the cats, which was a subject outside the scope of his qualification.
14The Board recessed for lunch and notified the Appellant by email of the anticipated return time. The Appellant phoned the case management officer and stated that he would not be returning to attend the hearing.
15Having been satisfied that the Appellant had notice of the return time but no longer wished to participate in the hearing, I proceeded in his absence pursuant to s. 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22. The Respondent’s witnesses completed their evidence, and the Respondent provided oral closing submissions.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
16An animal owner is responsible for costs incurred by the Respondent in cases where an inspector has taken steps to relieve an animal’s distress, removed an animal, or where the Respondent has kept an animal in care: s. 35(1), Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act). Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act lists various costs that are recoverable by the Respondent, including costs incurred to relieve an animal’s distress and costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed or kept in care.
17If an owner appeals a statement of account respecting these costs, the burden of proof is on the owner to show on a balance of probabilities that the statement of account should be revoked or varied. However, the Respondent has an initial evidentiary burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that the statement of account reflects the actual costs incurred and that these costs were reasonable (Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div. Ct.)).
18For the reasons that follow, I find that the charges passed on to the Appellant were actually incurred but not all charges were reasonable. As a result, I vary the SOA to $15,293.95, reflecting the $4,025.00 deduction requested by the Respondent as well as a further reduction of $1,619.70 in veterinary costs.
Events leading to the removal of the adult cat and the subsequent need for care for the adult cat and six kittens born in care
19AWS Senior Investigator (SI) Basil Thomas and Regional Supervisor (RS) Brandon James testified about their involvement in the file and explained how the need for boarding and veterinary services arose.
20Neither the removal of the adult cat nor the decision to keep the cats in care is under appeal in this matter. However, this background information is being discussed for the purpose of a) explaining the events that led to the Respondent incurring charges for the care of these cats; and b) providing context for the Appellant’s later arguments for why the charges were excessive and unreasonable.
21In April 2025, AWS removed over 100 cats from the Appellant’s residence. The Appellant was incarcerated during that time, and it was the Respondent’s position that the cats needed to be removed because they were in distress due to the living conditions at the house and because there were no suitable caretakers for the animals in the Appellant’s absence.
22One of the cats removed in April was pregnant. On May 7, 2025, the cat gave birth to six kittens while in the Respondent’s care. Most of the charges in the SOA relate to these six kittens.
23The remaining costs relate to an adult cat named Lady Jane. In early June 2025, SI Thomas received a call from a member of the public reporting that a cat had been found in a vent at the same house from where the other cats had been removed. The Respondent concedes that AWS left this cat behind during one of the April 2025 removals.
24A neighbour eventually took the cat to a veterinarian. SI Thomas attended the veterinary clinic and, on the advice of a veterinarian, issued a Notice of Removal under s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act, formally removing the cat from the Appellant’s care in order to relieve its distress. SI Thomas testified that the cat was thin, with hip bones protruding, and the right eye appeared to be ruptured.
25The six kittens and the adult cat were subsequently kept in the Respondent’s care pursuant to s. 31(6)(a) and (b)(i) of the PAWS Act. A Notice of Decision to Keep the Animals in Care was issued, indicating that keeping the animals in care was necessary to relieve their distress and that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
26The document went on to state that the Appellant had been unable to provide or solidify a caregiver for the cats while he remained in custody, and that the animals could not be returned to the Appellant’s home, which lacked sanitary conditions, adequate space, food, water and enrichment. It also noted that the kittens needed to remain with their mother and under the care of the boarding facility because they were too young to be separated.
The SOA reflects actual costs incurred and most charges are reasonable
27For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that the SOA (reduced by the Respondent to $16,913.65) reflected actual costs incurred in caring for the cats. However, in two instances, I find that some of the charges were unreasonable and should not have been passed on to the Appellant.
Veterinary costs for the adult cat
28The Respondent filed into evidence an invoice for veterinary charges incurred between June 3 and 16, 2025 for the adult cat, Lady Jane. The invoice totals $1,142.29 and includes charges for the following products and services: examinations, hospitalization, diagnostic testing, medication, food, and a topical treatment for parasites.
29In reviewing the appropriateness of these services, I accepted the evidence of Dr. Kyle Goldie. Dr. Goldie was qualified as an expert in veterinary medicine to provide an opinion on whether the veterinary care was necessary and whether the corresponding costs were reasonable. Having reviewed the medical records, Dr. Goldie prepared a report and testified that, based on the treating veterinarian’s reported findings, he agreed with the recommendations and found the tests, treatments and prescribed medications to be appropriate for Lady Jane.
30It was apparent from Dr. Goldie’s report and the medical records he relied on that Lady Jane required veterinary care after the treating veterinarian found her to be emaciated, assigned her a 2/9 body condition score, and assessed her to have an infected and potentially ruptured right eye.
31Dr. Goldie then compared the veterinary costs charged for Lady Jane to those set out in the 2025 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association Fee Guide. The Fee Guide is an annual publication of suggested fees for veterinary services in Ontario.
32I accepted Dr. Goldie’s evidence that all but one of the costs fell below the recommended ranges in the Fee Guide. Costs that fell below the recommended ranges included those for the initial examination, FeLV and FIV testing, and ear cleaning.
33Only one cost was higher than the suggested Fee Guide pricing. A one-day hospitalization and professional care fee for Lady Jane was approximately $195.00, while the Fee Guide suggested a cost of approximately $149.00/day. I did not find this to be a significant departure from the Fee Guide, and on balance, the excess was compensated for by multiple other charges being lower than the suggested Fee Guide pricing.
34Where there was no comparator listed in the Fee Guide, Dr. Goldie relied on his clinical experience in a companion animal practice and his knowledge of associated fees to assess some of the costs charged for Lady Jane’s care. I accepted his unchallenged evidence that the costs of the medications and food were appropriate and at market value.
35As previously mentioned, the Appellant did not testify, did not file any evidence, and left the hearing well before its conclusion on November 4, 2025. However, given that the Respondent bears the initial evidentiary burden of proving the reasonableness of the costs, I will address some comments made by the Appellant during the hearing as to why the costs related to Lady Jane were, in his view, unreasonable. These comments echoed the grounds of appeal listed in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and in the Board’s Case Conference Report and Order.
36The Appellant took the position that he should not be responsible for the costs of Lady Jane’s medical care because her distress was not caused by him but by the Respondent’s neglect during the April 2025 removals. He attributed Lady Jane’s medical condition to AWS losing the cat during removal and leaving her behind for two months.
37There is sufficient evidence before me to find that AWS left Lady Jane behind after it completed a series of removals in April 2025. The first page of the Respondent’s Notice of Decision to Keep the Animals in Care, dated June 19, 2025, references the fact that the “cat had inadvertently been left behind from the removal.” It goes on to state that on June 3, 2025, an occupant of the home advised [AWS] when they returned to the location [that] they located one lone cat who had been hiding in the ductwork.
38Although I considered RS James’ evidence that AWS has a mandate to relieve distress in animals, and I accept that Lady Jane was in distress due to her medical condition and received appropriate care, I nevertheless find that the Appellant should not be responsible for all the veterinary costs. I find that the Respondent’s own actions in leaving the animal behind more likely than not caused her medical issues or contributed to her medical needs.
39In seeking to have the costs confirmed, the Respondent submitted that the Board should not accept the Appellant’s argument because he provided no definitive evidence of the origins of Lady Jane’s condition. However, this would have required the Appellant to have secured some type of evidence of an absence of a medical condition in Lady Jane before April 2025, when he could not have anticipated this issue arising.
40There was also nothing in the Respondent’s evidence to establish that Lady Jane’s condition could not have developed between the time she was left behind in April and the time she was found in June, or that her condition could not have been exacerbated by the lack of care since late April. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that any of the other cats removed from the property in April suffered from similar conditions, which may have made it more likely that Lady Jane developed those conditions before the removal.
41I was also not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that the Appellant should be held responsible for these costs because there is no language in s. 35 of the PAWS Act to suggest that costs that can be passed on to an animal owner are limited to costs incurred in relation to distress that is caused by a certain party.
42I agree that for costs to be recovered by the Respondent under s. 35, distress need not be directly caused by the animal owner. For example, a caregiver hired by the animal owner may fail to provide appropriate care that places an animal in distress, and the owner may later be held responsible for costs of care provided to the animal by the Respondent to relieve that distress. However, the present case is distinguishable from that scenario. In this case, it is not simply that distress was not directly caused by the Appellant, it is that the cat’s medical conditions were more likely than not caused by the Respondent’s actions during removal. Given these circumstances, it is unreasonable for all the resulting veterinary costs to be passed on to the Appellant.
43There is also no blanket requirement in s. 35 that any or all costs associated with an animal’s care be passed on to the Appellant. The permissive language in s. 35(1), which states that the Respondent may, from time to time, serve on an owner a statement of account, accommodates the result in this case, which recognizes that it may not always be reasonable for an owner to pay costs regardless of how they came to be incurred, and especially not when the Respondent’s actions caused or contributed to the distress that resulted in costs being incurred.
44Overall, the medical care provided to Lady Jane was appropriate and the costs of care were of market value, but it is not reasonable for all the costs to be borne by the Appellant. As a result, I have deducted all veterinary costs related to Lady Jane, except for the $123.95 charge of her initial examination. This examination would have occurred regardless of her medical condition, and I accepted RS James’ evidence that it is AWS standard practice to have a removed animal examined by a veterinarian. As a result, I deduct $1,018.34 from the SOA.
Boarding and veterinary care costs for the six kittens
45The Respondent filed into evidence two invoices that proved the following costs were incurred:
Invoice 202036803 - $4,830 in boarding costs covering the period of May 2 through May 29, 2025, and later amended by the Respondent to $805.00.
Invoice 202037108 - $14,966.36, made up of:
i. $14,070 in boarding costs covering the period of May 30 to August 12, 2025, and
ii. $896.36 in veterinary care costs.
46Five kittens were boarded for 75 days. The sixth kitten was euthanized in June 2025 and was therefore boarded for only 27 days.
Boarding costs for the six kittens
47I accepted SI Thomas’ evidence that boarding was a necessary service because the kittens were born and remained in the Respondent’s care, the Appellant was still incarcerated, and AWS had not received any information to suggest that the Appellant had arranged for caretakers and a space where the animals could be returned.
48I also accepted RS James’ evidence that the kittens needed to be with a lactating cat following birth and until they were weaned, which could take anywhere from five to seven or eight weeks, depending on the animal.
49RS James testified that in reviewing the boarding charges in Invoice 202036803, it struck him as inappropriate for the boarding facility to charge $35/day per kitten while the kittens were under the care of their mother, who was incurring separate boarding costs. He said he inquired with the boarding facility and the facility ultimately agreed to reduce the boarding fee to $35/day for the litter as opposed to charging that rate for each individual kitten. This resulted in a reduction of $4,025.00 and the Respondent filed into evidence an amended Invoice 202036803, totaling $805.00 for boarding between May 2 and May 29, 2025.
50RS James also testified that the facility did provide extra care to the mother and kittens by giving the mother a larger nursing and living area to meet standards of care and allow retreat space. When necessary, the kittens were provided with supplemental feedings and were also weighed regularly to monitor their growth. They were gradually introduced to wet food and given probiotics.
51I accepted RS James’ evidence regarding the care provided to the kittens, and I find that it supports why some boarding costs had to be incurred for the kittens as a group. Relying on this evidence, I concluded that the reduced amount of $805.00 in boarding costs for the period of May 2 to 29, 2025 was reasonable and reflected an appropriate level of care for kittens that were still primarily supported by their mother.
52In relation to boarding costs covering the period of May 30 to August 12, 2025, Dr. Goldie opined that charging $35/day/kitten was appropriate because that rate was lower than the Fee Guide’s suggested fee of $55.60. I also considered RS James and SI Thomas’ unchallenged evidence that $35/day/cat was a standard boarding rate and that it included basic care, food, cleaning and enrichment.
53In light of this evidence and considering that the kittens were likely weaned by this time and required additional care to that provided in May, I concluded that $14,070 in boarding fees for approximately 2.5 months of housing and other care was reasonable and I confirm those costs.
Veterinary care costs for the six kittens
54Invoice 202037108, filed into evidence by the Respondent, proved that veterinary costs of $896.36 were incurred for the six kittens.
55Dr. Goldie reviewed the medical records, and I accepted his evidence that:
A fee of $150.34 was assessed to each kitten (except the one that was euthanized) for a medical exam, prescriptions and administering medication. The fee was slightly higher than the $149.50 suggested in the Fee Guide but in this case, it also included medications.
The kittens had signs of upper respiratory infections. The procedures, diagnostics and treatment were justified and medically indicated to address the clinical signs observed by the treating veterinarians. Dr. Goldie explained that, if left untreated, the condition could progress to pneumonia, ocular disease, oral lesions, and systemic signs like fever, lethargy and inappetence.
A fee of $295 was assessed to the kitten that was euthanized. The charge included fees for an examination and euthanasia. The Fee Guide’s suggested pricing for those two services would have been considerably higher, at $407.20.
Based on the findings reported in the medical records, euthanasia was the most humane course of action for the kitten named Smoke, who was very lethargic and almost comatose despite various interventions.
56The Appellant challenged these costs in comments made during the hearing and in his Notice of Appeal. I will address his two grounds in order.
57First, the Appellant stated that his own veterinarian would have charged considerably less and that AWS should have sought the services of that veterinarian instead. He said he shared with SI Thomas that he had a veterinarian “who could see eight cats for $60 for a check-up,” and he questioned why the Respondent’s vendor would charge double that amount for one single check-up.
58Although the Appellant did not revisit these comments in closing submissions because he left the hearing and declined to participate any further, I questioned RS James on how AWS selects its vendors in any given case. I was persuaded by his evidence that AWS balances various factors, but that its priority is to have a removed animal seen by a veterinarian shortly after removal. Secondary to that is the cost associated with the care, so that neither the taxpayer nor the owner pays an exorbitant amount in fees. He added that in some situations, modest cost savings do not justify the resulting delay in care, the travel time or the stress to the animal during transport. I accepted his evidence and found this to be a reasonable approach.
59While the Appellant argued that his veterinarian could have provided services at a lower rate, he did not testify or provide any other evidence showing that another veterinarian could have offered the services at a lower rate. In any event, the fees were generally in line with the Fee Guide and the fact that another veterinarian could offer the same services at a lower cost does not in itself prove that the charges on the SOA were unreasonable.
60The Appellant also made several statements throughout the hearing suggesting that he should not be responsible for the kittens’ veterinary costs because:
the kittens “did not exist at any point in time in [his] house;”
they were born into distress and got sick while in the Respondent’s care; and
the Respondent “killed” a cat in its custody because AWS inspectors do not hold themselves to the same types of laws [that apply to owners].
61I agree with the Appellant that the kittens’ medical needs were not attributed to any neglect or improper care on his part. However, there was no evidence to support the Appellant’s assertion that the Respondent “killed” one of the cats by failing to provide it care. The medical records Dr. Goldie relied on referenced various interventions to help the cat survive, and euthanasia was chosen as the most humane course of action only after those interventions proved unsuccessful. Finding the veterinary costs to be reasonable, I confirm the $295.00 in examination and euthanasia fees for Smoke.
62Nevertheless, I find there is some merit to the Appellant’s second argument. I conclude that he should not be responsible for some of the veterinary costs because the upper respiratory conditions (observed in the kittens that were not euthanized) developed after the kittens had been at the boarding facility for over two months.
63I considered Dr. Goldie’s evidence that upper respiratory infections are common in cats, particularly in large colonies, but there was no evidence to suggest that the mother had similar symptoms on removal and that the kittens may have been infected as a result. More importantly, it appeared that the infections were acquired well into the kittens’ stay at the boarding facility. Dr. Goldie’s evidence that upper respiratory infections involve both viral and bacterial infectious components, along with the medical records showing that the infections were first noticed in August, leads me to find that the kittens’ condition more likely than not resulted from the care at the boarding facility. As a result, it was not reasonable to pass on related examination and treatment costs to the Appellant and I deduct a further $601.36 from the SOA. The reduction reflects a rate of $150.34, which the invoice indicates was only charged for four kittens.
64Overall, I confirm the following costs:
$123.95 in veterinary costs for Lady Jane;
$805.00 in boarding costs for the kittens;
$14,070 in boarding costs for the kittens; and
$295.00 in veterinary costs for one kitten, for a total of $15,293.95.
ORDER
65Pursuant to s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I vary the SOA and order the Appellant to pay $15,293.95 to the Minister of Finance.
Released: January 2, 2026
Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair