Terry Peterson v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 211

Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 2026-02-06

Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13

Between:

Terry Peterson Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Alisa Chaplick, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Terry Peterson, Self-represented For the Respondent: Alice (Yun) Liu, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: January 12 & 13, 2026

OVERVIEW

1This matter concerns an appeal of an Order issued by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) to Terry Peterson (the “Appellant”) in relation to a cat and the following dogs: two female setters, two male setters, two Biewer terriers and three Maremma sheepdogs.

2On November 3, 2025, Kathleen MacDonald, an inspector with AWS (“Inspector MacDonald”) obtained a Telewarrant (Animal in Distress) (the “Warrant”) pursuant to section 28 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act). The next day, Inspector MacDonald and two additional AWS inspectors carried out an inspection of the Appellant’s property (the “Property”), pursuant to the Warrant, while the Appellant was not present, as discussed below. When the Appellant arrived home, Inspector MacDonald served her with an Order of the same date under section 30(1) of the PAWS Act (the “Order”). The Order required the Appellant to do the following by December 9, 2025:

i. Have a veterinarian examine various animals with special attention to the following: large white dog in outdoor run that is covered in burrs/limping; only cat with attention to body condition; two female setters regarding body condition; one male setter (brown/white) regarding ear wound;

ii. Provide the animal welfare inspector with prescribed documentation from the veterinarian, as well as a statement of treatments the Appellant carried out at home according to the veterinarian’s recommendations;

iii. Provide potable water to all dogs both inside and outside;

iv. Provide adequate ventilation to all indoor animals;

v. Provide an indoor space that is sanitary and free of “garbage, junk, feces and other items that may harm animals”;

vi. Provide a space that is “sanitary and safe/free of junk for dogs outside”;

vii. Provide adequate shelters for the outdoor dogs which are/include: an insulated roof of the doghouse; elevated from the ground; clean/sanitary; three inches of straw/bedding inside; and large enough for dogs to stand, sit, and lay without hitting themselves;

viii. Provide grooming and trim all nails of all the dogs;

ix. Ensure none of the dogs wear tethers inside the dwelling unsupervised; and

x. Provide indoor male/female Setters with appropriate kennels to allow them to stand, sit and lay fully stretched out without hitting their head/body.

3On November 19, 2025, the Appellant appealed the Order to the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”) and the parties participated in a case conference on November 28, 2025.

4The matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing on January 12 and 13, 2026.

ISSUES

5The issues to be decided are:

1. Should the Order dated November 4, 2025 be confirmed, revoked or modified?

In deciding upon issue 1, I considered the following:

1(a) Were there reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant’s animals referenced in the Order were in distress on November 4, 2025, the date that the Order was issued?

1(b) If yes, were the actions required by the Order necessary to relieve the distress of the animals?

RESULT

6For the reasons that follow, I confirm the Order dated November 4, 2025. This is because there were reasonable grounds to believe Appellant’s animals referenced in the Order were in distress on November 4, 2025, the date that the Order was issued. It is also because the actions required by the Order were necessary to relieve the distress of the animals.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE – APPELLANT’S ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

7On January 9, 2026, which was the last business day before the hearing, which commenced on January 12, 2026, the Appellant emailed the Board stating that she was requesting an adjournment. I denied the adjournment request for the reasons noted below.

8In the Appellant’s January 9, 2026 email to the Board, she stated that she was seeking the adjournment in order to summons three witnesses to testify at the hearing. I heard the adjournment request immediately prior to the hearing on the merits. During the adjournment request, the Appellant advised that the three witnesses were as follows: Dr. Michelle Chiunti, who the Appellant stated is a veterinarian who advised the Appellant that she could not examine her animals because she works for AWS at times and was in a conflict of interest; Emily Harris, who the Appellant stated is the Director at the Humane Society; and Barbara Lusciano, who the Appellant stated is an acquaintance who was involved in rehoming the animals that were eventually taken to the Humane Society.

9After hearing the submissions of the parties regarding the adjournment request, I made an oral ruling denying the request with written reasons to follow. These are my written reasons for denying the adjournment request.

10Upon questioning the Appellant regarding these witnesses, she advised that she wished for them to testify regarding matters leading up to the issuance of the Warrant. She stated that she was not seeking their testimony regarding anything that occurred after the Warrant was issued. The Appellant was of the belief that the testimony elicited by these witnesses may show things such as bias and lack of credibility on the part of AWS.

11For example, the Appellant stated that a video provided to Inspector MacDonald from the Humane Society which purportedly depicted two of the dogs that were surrendered to the Humane Society on the Appellant’s behalf were not, in fact, her animals. She argued that this video was part of the reason the Warrant was issued and therefore, the Warrant was issued in error.

12The Respondent, on the other hand, noted that the Appellant did not provide will says for the above three potential witnesses, as required by the Case Conference Report and Order that was issued following the case conference. In addition, the Respondent argued that what was at issue was the Order and not what occurred prior to the Order.

13Furthermore, with respect to the argument that the Warrant was issued in error, the Respondent cited a case from this Board, Pryde, Spottiswood and Pierce v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 ONACRB 31 at para. 6 (“Pryde”). In Pryde, the Board found that a motion to the Board to challenge the warrants in that case was a collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice where the warrants were issued. In particular, the Board found that the warrants were issued by the Ontario Court of Justice and could only be challenged in the forum in which they were issued. The Respondent in this case argued that as with Pryde, the Warrant in this case was issued in the Ontario Court of Justice, and it is not for the Board to question the basis upon which the Warrant was issued.

14I agree with the Respondent that the Appellant’s argument that the Warrant was issued in error in this matter is a collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice. As with Pryde, the Warrant in this matter was issued by the Ontario Court of Justice and it can only be challenged in the forum in which it was issued, using the procedures available in that forum. It is not for this Board to question the basis upon which the Warrant was issued.

15Because the Appellant’s potential witnesses were proposed to discuss the events leading up to the Warrant, and not the contents of the Order at issue, I am persuaded to deny the adjournment request. I am also persuaded by the Respondent’s arguments regarding the late request for summons’ and the late adjournment request. In particular, I agree with the Respondent that granting the adjournment would unfairly prejudice the Respondent who had their witnesses available and was prepared to proceed with the hearing on January 12 and 13, 2026. For all of these reasons, the adjournment request was denied.

ANALYSIS

The Order dated November 4, 2025 is confirmed

16The Order dated November 4, 2025 is confined for the reasons noted herein.

There were reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant’s animals referenced in the Order were in distress on November 4, 2025, the date that the Order was issued

17I find that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant’s animals referenced in the Order were in distress on November 4, 2025, the date that the Order was issued.

18Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act as “the 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.”

19The Respondent stated that in Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632 at paragraph 52, the Divisional Court found, in relation to the definition of “distress” in the PAWS Act, that animal owners must comply with the PAWS Act and with Ontario Regulation 444/19 – Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements under the PAWS Act (“Regulation”). At paragraph 52 of Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Divisional Court stated, “…Owners are required to comply with the minimum standards prescribed in the Act and Regulation, and, if they do not, their animals are, by definition, “in distress”.”

20The Respondent also argued that the Order was issued in accordance with section 30(1) of the PAWS Act which states,

30 (1) An animal welfare inspector who has reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is in distress and who is able to promptly find the owner or custodian of the animal may order the owner or custodian to take such action as may, in the opinion of the inspector, be necessary to relieve the animal of its distress, which may include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, having the animal examined and treated by a veterinarian at the expense of the owner or custodian.

21The Respondent argued that as per section 30(1) of the PAWS Act, Inspector MacDonald had reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress at the time the Order was issued. I agree with the Respondent and rely on the evidence below.

22Inspector MacDonald testified and stated that the following occurred on November 4, 2025, after the Warrant discussed above was obtained and AWS attended to inspect the Property pursuant to the Warrant: Inspector MacDonald attended the Property with AWS Inspector Lindsay Kirkwood and AWS Inspector Samantha Delahaye (collectively, the “Inspectors”). Inspector MacDonald testified that to the right, attached to the dwelling, was a fenced off area at the Property, which contained three livestock guardian dogs. The fenced off area was highly soiled with feces and mud. There were several broken igloo type dog shelters in the area. None of the igloo shelters appeared to be of adequate size for the dogs inside the space. There was a large calf hutch and a large C-can type metal storage box. The C-can was bursting with household items and debris. There was not space inside this fenced in area that was safe and free of debris and feces. There were broken igloo dog houses, broken chairs, wood and an embedded trampoline, in piles in the yard. There was no water for the dogs that was potable, and no food observed. One of the three dogs observed in the yard was heavily matted with burrs and was observed limping. All dogs in the outdoor enclosure had overgrown nails.

23Inspector MacDonald also stated that there were two other observed outdoor spaces for the dogs. One had an igloo doghouse inside that was flipped over. The adjacent one had one igloo doghouse with a large amount of fresh-looking feces all over the enclosure including on top of the igloo doghouse.

24In addition, Inspector MacDonald testified that there was a fence around the Property, but it was not complete in places and would allow for animals to escape and stray into traffic. There was opened dog food in the driveway in the elements which could get spoiled or contaminated by wildlife.

25With respect to the inside of the Property, Inspector MacDonald testified that there was a sliding glass door that was covered in dirt and mud. Inside of the door was a large, enclosed porch space. The area smelled of ammonia and contained debris. There were small pop can tabs all over the floor that could be easily ingested by a dog. There were also several buckets of soiled water that were within easy access to any dog in the room. The items of debris in this area were so great that they went up to the ceiling in some places and made it impossible to fully move around the space.

26Inspector MacDonald also testified that inside the dwelling there were several buckets of dirty water that may have been used for cleaning. One of the loose female setter type dogs wandering the dwelling was wearing a wire tether attached to its collar that was dragging behind it. The tether was not attached to anything in the dwelling except the dog.

27Inspector MacDonald stated that there were two male setter dogs in wire crates that were buried under mounds of laundry. There was rotten food on the kitchen counter and the entire area contained debris, making it difficult to move around. One of the male setters was in a kennel space that was too small for the dog to stand in without hitting its head and the water in the kennel appeared to have a film on top. In addition, the setter’s nails were overgrown. Inspector MacDonald reported similar findings regarding the second male setter dog, and also stated that this dog appeared to have a wound on the left side of his head behind his ear that was scabbed over.

28In addition, Inspector MacDonald reported that there was so much debris that it was very difficult to move around without tripping over items. Furthermore, ammonia readings were high, at 15 parts per million, and the dwelling smelled like urine and feces. Inspector MacDonald also testified that AWS Veterinarian Bruce Robertson did a virtual walk through of the Property performed by Inspector Kirkwood and Inspector Delahaye.

29Inspector MacDonald stated that after attempts to contact the Appellant, the Appellant arrived at the Property. Inspector MacDonald stated that she was initially prepared for removal as the Appellant was not home and there was nobody to issue an Order to. However, when the Appellant arrived at the Property, Inspector MacDonald decided to issue the Order to the Appellant instead.

30Inspector MacDonald stated that she explained in detail to Appellant what the Order would entail but the Appellant was very distraught and difficult to communicate with. The Appellant was agreeable to the deadline of December 9, 2025 for completion of the items in Order. Inspector Delahaye provided the Appellant with a booklet regarding outdoor dog regulations for Ontario.

31In addition to the testimony of Inspector MacDonald, Inspector Delahaye testified and stated that while at the Property, she was instructed to take photographs. Accordingly, she provided testimony regarding many of the photographs she had taken. Inspector Delahaye’s testimony and photographs corroborated the testimony of Inspector MacDonald.

32On the other hand, the Appellant’s testimony on her own behalf included the following: she stated that she has experienced a number of hardships including suicide of her partner, and she has suffered from breast cancer and needing a knee replacement. Due to moving houses and chemotherapy, many of her belongings were moved around.

33The Appellant stated that a bit over a year ago a tree fell on her shed and she decided it would be a good time to start sorting and purging items. The Appellant admitted that she had “piles all over the place” and that the “place looks very messy but I’m one person living in a one person house.” She also stated that she suffers from some mental health issues that can make it difficult for her to start things in the daytime, as well as physical limitations which make activities such as lifting difficult or impossible. The Appellant admitted to being behind in some things but stated that things were always in progress even if she had to stop at times. She stated that she was in the midst of deciding on things such as what to keep, donate and sell. She stated that she “lives in the middle of nowhere” so she waits for a pile to get big enough, deals with that pile and, “makes the next mess.”

34The Appellant also made arguments regarding some of the Inspector MacDonald’s findings. For example, she stated that the Inspector MacDonald did not see some water at the Property when performing the inspection and that although the animals’ water may have been low, it was not out. She also stated that one of the dog’s nails was clipped less than two weeks before the Order. In addition, she stated that not all of the dogs were matted. The Appellant also stated that contrary to the Order, there was no ear wound on any of her dogs. She stated that one of her dogs has a wart behind his ear, but not a wound.

35At the hearing, the Appellant also showed the Board and the Respondent pictures of some items that she bought in response to the Order; however, the Respondent argued that what was relevant was whether the animals were in distress when the Order was issued.

36The Appellant also stated that as per veterinary records of examinations on December 5, 2025, her dog Gucci was reported to have had mats recently removed and nails trimmed. Further, no limping was noted. In addition, her dog Diamond’s skin and coat were reported to have no abnormalities found. Further, Diamond was reported to have a small burr behind her left ear. Her dog Tucker was reported to have a wart in his skin behind his left ear – i.e. not a wound. This is evidence that the Appellant has taken some steps to comply with the Order, but as noted by the Respondent, the relevant question for the Board to answer is whether the animals were in distress when the Order was issued.

37The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the evidence presented demonstrated that Appellant was in breach of the PAWS Act and the Regulation. As noted, the Respondent argued that the Order was issued in accordance with section 30(1) of the PAWS Act and the Regulation. The Respondent also argued that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant’s animals referenced in the Order were in distress on November 4, 2025, the date that the Order was issued. The Respondent stated that this was supported by the testimony of Inspector MacDonald and Inspector Delahaye including the photographic evidence.

38While I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s personal circumstances, by her own admission, she had piles all over and the place looked very messy. Furthermore, the definition of distress does not change based on the animal owner’s personal circumstances.

39The testimony of Inspector MacDonald and the testimony and photographs taken by Inspector Delahaye satisfy me that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant’s animals referenced in the Order were in distress on November 4, 2025, the date that the Order was issued, as per the PAWS Act and the Regulation for the reasons noted herein. In particular, I am persuaded that the conditions that the animals were kept in did not meet the minimum standards of care in the Regulation, as described more fully below.

The actions required by the Order were necessary to relieve the distress of the animals

40I find that the actions required by the Order were necessary to relieve the distress of the animals. As stated, the testimony of the Inspector MacDonald and supported by Inspector Delahaye, noted above, was that the animals lacked proper shelter, food and water, had burrs, matting and long nails. Inspector MacDonald also believed that the animals had inadequate ventilation, a lack of sanitary conditions and that there were items on the Property, that the animals had access to, that could harm the animals. In addition, Inspector MacDonald stated that there was an unsupervised dog in the dwelling with a long tether that was not attached to anything except the dog. I find that the Order was directly responsive to these observations and the requirements of the Order were necessary to relieve distress.

41In addition, I find that the Order was made in accordance with the PAWS Act and the Regulation. Part two of the Regulation, among other things, requires all animals to be provided with appropriate medical attention, an adequate sleeping area, sanitary conditions, light and protection from the elements. In addition, the Regulation contains specific requirements for dogs that are kept outdoors. I find that the Order dealt with the issues that were noted during the inspection in accordance with the PAWS Act and the Regulation, and that the Order was necessary to relieve the distress of the animals.

42In addition, the Order required some of the animals to be examined by a veterinarian with special attention to particulars, as noted above. It also required the Appellant to provide the animal welfare inspector with prescribed documentation from the veterinarian, as well as a statement of treatments the Appellant carried out at home according to the veterinarian’s recommendations.

43I note that while the Appellant disputed the need for various veterinary examinations required in the Order, Inspector MacDonald did not state with certainty in the Order what veterinary care might be needed. However, she did defer to a veterinarian to examine some of the animals, with special attention to various matters noted in the Order.

44I also note that the above requirements with respect to the veterinarian did not involve all of the animals and were tailored and responsive to concerns identified during the inspection. I find that given the concerns identified in the investigation, the steps involving a veterinarian in the Order were necessary to relieve the distress of those animals.

ORDER

45For the reasons noted above, I confirm the Order dated November 4, 2025. This is because there were reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant’s animals referenced in the Order were in distress on November 4, 2025, the date that the Order was issued. It is also because the actions required by the Order were necessary to relieve the distress of the animals.