Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2026-02-18

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

Between:

Jaron Barnes

Appellant/Applicant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Debra Backstein, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Jaron Barnes, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Adrien Iafrate, Counsel Brandon James, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services

Heard by videoconference: December 16 and 17, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Jaron Barnes, the Applicant/Appellant (hereinafter “Appellant”), owns an American Bulldog type dog named Bella, which was removed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on October 16, 2025.

2A Notice of Removal (NOR) was issued on October 16, 2025, based on a certificate of a veterinarian stating that Bella was in distress. The NOR was not appealed by the Appellant.

3On November 18, 2025, a Decision to Keep the Animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (DTK) was issued to the Appellant under s.31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act).

4On November 18, 2025, a Statement of Account (SOA) was issued to the Appellant by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) under s. 35 of the PAWS Act in the amount of $5,048.80 for costs incurred by Respondent to board and provide veterinary and medical care to Bella. The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on November 19, 2025.

5The Appellant also filed an Application for Return of an Animal (Application for Return) on November 19, 2025, under s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act on the basis that the conditions that caused Bella to be kept in the Respondent’s care had ceased to exist.

6The parties participated in a case conference on November 28, 2025, and on consent, the matters were combined under section 9.1(1)(a) of Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.22 (SPPA). The matters proceeded to a videoconference hearing.

ISSUES

7The issues to be decided are:

1. Was Bella in distress at the time of removal, and if so, was it necessary for AWS to remove her to alleviate her distress?
2. Should the SOA issued on November 18, 2025, be confirmed, varied or revoked?
3. Have the conditions that caused the dog to be kept in the Respondent’s care ceased to exist such that Bella should be returned to the Appellant?

RESULT

8For the reasons that follow, I find that Bella was in distress at the time of her removal, and it was necessary for AWS to remove her to alleviate her distress. Further, I find that the costs as set out in the SOA were incurred and were reasonable and should be confirmed. Finally, I find that the Appellant has not met his burden of establishing that the conditions that caused Bella to be in distress have ceased to exist. The Application for Return is therefore dismissed.

BACKGROUND

9AWS first became involved in this matter following reports concerning the Appellant’s treatment of Bella in the common areas of the apartment building where the Appellant lived. The concerns culminated in AWS receiving video recordings that were captured by the building’s security system.

10On September 25, 2025, AWS attended the Appellant’s building after reviewing some of the video evidence. However, upon attending at the Appellant’s unit, the attending inspector observed Bella to be “bright, alert, responsive and in good body condition” and as a result, Bella was not removed from the Appellant’s care.

11On October 16, 2025, AWS received further video footage dated October 15, 2025, showing the Appellant physically assaulting Bella in the lobby, elevator and hallways of the building. AWS ascertained from this video footage that Bella was in distress and she was removed from the Appellant’s care.

12Following her removal, Bella was transported to veterinary facilities for assessment and treatment and later boarded at an animal rehabilitation facility.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Issue 1-Was Bella in distress at the time of removal, and if so, was it necessary for AWS to remove her to alleviate her distress?

Legal Test:

13Section 1(1) of the PAWS Act defines distress as “the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or [being] abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect”.

14Under s. 31(1) of the PAWS Act, an animal welfare inspector may remove an animal where a veterinarian provides a written opinion that the animal is in distress and removal is necessary to alleviate that distress.

15The Board must therefore determine on the evidence before it, whether Bella was in distress within the meaning of the PAWS Act at the time of the removal and whether the removal was necessary to relieve her distress.

Evidence and Analysis:

16AWS Inspector Nikki Trost (Inspector Trost) testified on behalf of the Respondent. She testified that she became involved in this matter when she received information from the Appellant’s building manager of security video footage depicting the Appellant interacting with Bella in the common areas of the building.

17Inspector Trost testified that she reviewed multiple clips dated September 25, 2025 and October 15, 2025. The video footage was entered as exhibits at the hearing.

18The September 25, 2025 video footage was reviewed during the hearing and depicted the Appellant and Bella in the common area of the building near the elevators. The Appellant is holding Bella on a leash and Bella appears hesitant to move in the direction that the Appellant appears to be attempting to take her. The Appellant then pulls Bella by the leash in a forceful manner, and Bella appears to brace her legs while being pulled forward. The Appellant then uses physical force to further pull Bella towards the elevator in a rough and aggressive manner.

19The October 15, 2025 footage was reviewed during the hearing in separate sequences. In the first sequence, Bella and the Appellant are seen entering the building from outside. The Appellant turns abruptly toward Bella and Bella visibly retreats backwards. Inspector Trost testified that she believed that Bella’s reaction suggested fear or anticipation of aggression.

20A separate video sequence took place in a hallway of the building. Bella is seen walking behind the Appellant on a leash. The Appellant then turns towards Bella and kicks her. Bella visibly retreats. Rather than disengaging, the Appellant is seen pursuing her down the hallway to kick her again.

21In another sequence, the Appellant is seen lifting Bella by the leash and collar and then forcefully throwing or dropping her to the ground in the lobby of the building. She is also dragged by the leash across the lobby area.

22Inspector Trost testified that what concerned her was not only a single isolated act, but the repetition of abuse. She testified that the video footage demonstrated a pattern of physical violence and loss of control. In her view, the conduct constituted abuse and created an immediate risk of physical injury to Bella.

23She testified that she was concerned that if Bella remained in the Appellant’s care, the behaviour could recur. She concluded that Bella was being abused within the meaning of the PAWS Act and removal was necessary to alleviate ongoing risk, and distress.

24In addition, upon removal of Bella, Inspector Trost noted that she had been wearing a shirt over her abdomen and rib area. Upon removal of the shirt, she noted several lesions and areas of missing fur. Inspector Trost testified that when asked about the cause of the lesions, the Appellant indicated that they were caused by a “skin infection”.

25In his testimony, the Appellant acknowledged that he struck and kicked Bella. He characterized the conduct as occurring during a mental health episode where he was under a great deal of stress and lost control.

26AWS veterinarian, Dr. Kyle Goldie also testified on behalf of the Respondent. He testified that he had reviewed the October 15, 2025 footage prior to providing his opinion on the matter and signing the veterinarian certificate. In both his expert report and oral evidence, Dr. Goldie identified repeated forceful kicks to Bella’s torso, lifting and forcefully dropping and dragging by the leash as conduct consistent with blunt force trauma.

27Dr. Goldie testified that the mechanism of injury associated with repeated kicking to a dog’s ribcage/abdomen, creates a risk of rib fractures, pulmonary contusions, internal bleeding and significant pain, even when an external injury is not immediately visible. He concluded that blunt force trauma of this nature constitutes abuse and placed Bella at risk of being “injured, sick, in pain or suffering”.

28In addition, Dr. Goldie referenced medical records from O’Conner Veterinary Services from August 31, 2025, that he reviewed, where it was reported that Bella presented at the clinic due to injuries sustained when she walked into broken glass. Amongst other injuries, a “three inch long, and one to two cm wide deep puncture wound was noted on her lumbar region”. The notes also indicated that the Appellant had advised that the injury had occurred “a few days ago”.

29Dr. Goldie noted that the records indicated that the Appellant only brought her to the veterinarian when she became “lethargic, inappetant and drinking less water”. It was also noted in the records he reviewed that Bella was limping and was non-weight bearing.

30Dr. Goldie opined that this occurrence was another example to indicate that Bella was in distress as the Appellant did not ensure she had proper medical care until days after she sustained painful injuries that were so severe that she became anemic, dehydrated and non-weight bearing when presented at the veterinary clinic.

31Dr. Goldie was asked to provide his opinion as to the source of the skin lesions found on Bella’s abdomen and rib area. He opined that the lesions did not indicate a skin infection, but rather untreated lesions that had led to the skin infection.

32I accept Dr. Goldie’s evidence. His opinion was grounded in his direct review of the footage and in his professional understanding of the mechanism of injury associated with repeated physical and psychological trauma. I note that these were not momentary leash corrections or accidental contact. The video footage depicts repeated kicking, lifting, throwing and dragging.

33The statutory definition of distress expressly includes an animal being abused. The repeated kicking, lifting and dragging constitute abuse as well as “injured, sick, in pain or suffering”. On the totality of evidence including my direct review of the video exhibits, the Appellant’s admissions, Inspector Trost’s testimony and Dr. Goldie’s opinion and certificate, the Board finds that Bella was in distress within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act and her removal was necessary to alleviate her distress. I acknowledge the Appellant’s expressed remorse and regret for his conduct. However, the statutory definition of distress does not turn on intention or motivation. It focuses strictly on the condition of the animal.

Issue 2-Should the Statement of Account be confirmed, varied or revoked?

Legal Authority:

34Pursuant to s.35(1) of the PAWS Act an animal owner is liable for costs incurred by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector in relation to an animal in circumstances where:

1. An inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include by providing it with necessaries under s.33;
2. An inspector has removed the animal under s.31(1) or (2); and
3. The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept the animal in care or taken the animal into care.

35Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act states that costs may include, among other things;

4. Costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress;
5. Costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care;
6. Costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed;
7. Costs of providing care for an animal that has been kept or taken into care.

36In Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div. Ct.) (Windrift), the Divisional Court established an analytical framework for SOA appeals. The Respondent bears an initial evidentiary burden to establish that the costs were actually incurred and were reasonable. Once this burden is met, the Appellant must then demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the SOA should be revoked or varied.

Evidence and Analysis:

Has the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden that the SOA reflects the actual cost of necessaries and where these costs reasonable?

37The SOA totaled $5,048.80 and reflects three categories of costs:

8. Emergency veterinary assessment and diagnostics at 404 Veterinary Emergency and Referral Hospital;
9. Follow up veterinary assessment at Beacon Animal Hospital; and
10. Boarding costs at Outrun Animal Rehabilitation Centre.

38The SOA indicated boarding costs in the amount of $1620.35 ($1433.94 +$186.41 taxes) and veterinary costs in the amount of $3428.45 ($3034.05 +$394.40 in taxes).

39The Respondent submitted the invoices which were reviewed by Dr. Goldie who also provided evidence regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the charges.

404 Veterinary Emergency and Referral Hospital

40The 404 Veterinary Emergency and Referral Hospital constituted the largest portion of the SOA and included charges for:

a) Emergency examination; b) Bloodwork and laboratory diagnostics; c) Sedation and monitoring; d) CT scan and imaging interpretation; e) Medication and pain management; f) Hospitalization and monitoring.

41Dr. Goldie testified that once Bella was removed, a comprehensive veterinary assessment was medically appropriate due to the repeated blunt force trauma she had suffered. Further Dr. Goldie testified that the kicking of Bella’s abdomen could have caused rib fractures, pulmonary contusions and internal bleeding, even when no external injuries are immediately visible. He explained that the advanced and more sensitive imaging offered by a CT scan was appropriate given the level of force that Bella was observed to have endured during the abuse. He noted that x-rays would not be sensitive enough for this type of detection.

42Dr. Goldie compared the emergency veterinary charges to those in the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association fee guide, a list of fees that are considered fair in the industry. He noted that the emergency veterinary facilities charge higher rates than standard clinics, and while some items were modestly above guide amounts, the overall charges were within a reasonable range for emergency services.

43The Appellant did not directly challenge any of the fees from 404 Veterinary and Emergency Hospital other than to say that the CT scan was expensive and unnecessary.

44I am satisfied with Dr. Goldie’s evidence that a CT scan was necessary in order to detect potential internal injuries that Bella may have sustained from the abuse.

45I accept Dr. Goldie’s evidence and conclusion that the need for comprehensive diagnostics is a direct result of what Bella had endured and was responsive to documented and repeated physical trauma.

46I therefore find that the 404 Veterinary Emergency and Referral Hospital invoice was reasonably incurred.

Beacon Animal Hospital

47Following the emergency assessment, Bella was taken to Beacon Animal Hospital. The invoice reflects examination, monitoring and follow up care.

48Dr. Goldie opined that this was clinically appropriate to ensure that there were no delayed complications from the blunt force trauma Bella had endured and to monitor Bella in a non-emergency setting.

49In addition, Dr. Goldie noted that the veterinarian at Beacon Animal Hospital was also able to assess Bella’s skin lesions and suggested that they were consistent with multiple healing wounds associated with suspected abuse and suspicion of burns. The Beacon Animal Hospital was also able to monitor Bella for neurological, orthopaedic and soft tissue injuries.

50Dr. Goldie opined that on the whole, he believed the costs were both appropriate and reasonable.

51The Appellant did not directly challenge any of the Beacon Animal Hospital charges.

52I accept that these follow-up costs were a reasonable continuation of care initiated in response to Bella’s removal.

Outrun Animal Rehabilitation Centre

53Bella was boarded at Outrun Animal Rehabilitation Center at a daily rate of $45.00. The Respondent argued that the charges on the SOA were for necessaries to relieve distress that was caused by the Appellant’s actions.

54Inspector Trost provided evidence that the costs charged for Bella’s boarding were consistent with the boarding costs that facilities typically charge for boarding animals.

55I find that on a balance of probabilities the Respondent has met the initial evidentiary burden that the SOA reflects the actual costs incurred for necessaries that were reasonable and necessary to relieve Bella’s distress and to ensure her safety and health. I find that these expenses fall the directly within s.35(2) of the PAWS Act. As such, I find that the Respondent has established that the veterinary and boarding costs were incurred and were reasonable in the circumstances.

Has the Appellant met the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the SOA should be revoked or varied?

56Having found that the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden, the onus then shifts to the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the SOA should be revoked or varied.

57The Respondent argued that the Appellant did not meet his onus as he did not present any evidence to indicate that the costs on the SOA were in any way unnecessary or unreasonable nor did he provide evidence of an inability to pay.

58Under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board has the discretion to confirm, revoke or vary an SOA and may consider the Appellant’s ability to pay. The Divisional Court in Ontario (Chief Animal Welfare Inspector) v. Ishankova, 2023 ONSC 1284 (Div. Ct.) confirmed that ability to pay is a relevant factor in the Board’s discretionary analysis, provided that it is weighed in a manner consistent with the PAWS Act’s purpose of owner accountability and avoiding routine cost-shifting to the public.

59The Appellant testified that he is unemployed and receives approximately $629.00 per month in social assistance. His monthly rent is approximately $2000.00 but he can only afford to pay $400.00 per month and relies on his mother to pay the rest. His mother also assists him with veterinary expenses.

60The Appellant did not provide bank statements, income confirmation documents, or evidence of any liabilities such as credit card debt. There was also no evidence provided that he is medically unable to work on a long-term basis.

61The Board accepts that $5,048.80 represents a significant sum relative to the Appellant’s current income. However, several factors are relevant to why I find that the SOA should be confirmed:

1. This was not a case where the expenses resulted from unavoidable injury or illness. The Appellant admitted to physically harming Bella;
2. The Appellant has an ability to pay. Both the Appellant and his mother Maxine Johnson, testified that she supplements his income and pays for veterinary expenses when needed; and
3. The Appellant did not present evidence demonstrating why he is unable to work.

62The Board finds that the costs in the SOA were reasonably incurred and are the Appellant’s responsibility as her owner.

63The Board finds that the Appellant has not met his burden on a balance of probabilities that the SOA should be varied or revoked.

ISSUE 3 - Have the conditions that caused Bella to be kept in AWS care ceased to exist such that she should be returned to the Appellant?

Legal Test:

64Section 38(4) of the PAWS Act permits an owner to apply for the return of an animal that has been removed and is being kept in care of the Respondent. The onus is on the Appellant to show that the conditions that led to the dog to be kept in care have ceased to exist (Ishankova v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 36).

65Under section 38(9)(2) of the PAWS Act when an owner applies for the return of an animal, the Board may order the return. Read in combination with s. 38(4), the Board can order the return if the Board is satisfied that the conditions that caused the animal to be kept in or taken into the Respondent’s care have ceased to exist.

66The onus rests with the Appellant to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the risk factors giving rise to distress and being kept in care by the Respondent have been removed and that the animal will not be returned to an environment of distress.

67The September 25, 2025 and October 15, 2025 video footage depict sustained physical violence towards Bella in the common areas of the building for all to see. Further the violence continued over a period of weeks rather a single impulsive act and escalated even when Bella attempted to retreat and withdraw.

68The primary circumstances that kept Bella in the Respondent’s care was the physical abuse documented in the September 25, 2025 and October 15, 2025 video footage. The Appellant has acknowledged that he struck, kicked, dragged and threw Bella. He framed his conduct as arising from mental health episodes caused by a variety of stressors, rather than intentional cruelty.

69Dr. Goldie testified that the mechanism of the injuries posed significant risk of internal trauma and psychological harm. His evidence also stressed the importance of recognizing the seriousness of the incident in August of 2025, when Bella had walked through glass sustaining severe injuries. He opined that the Appellant’s behaviour at that time was in contravention of the basic standards of care for all animals by “failing to provide adequate and appropriate medical attention”. Dr. Goldie concluded that returning Bella to the Appellant has “a high likelihood of exposing her to ongoing distress”.

70I am satisfied that the August 2025 incident, as well as the video evidence of September 25, 2025 and October 15, 2025 establish a pattern and chronicity to the abusive behaviour.

71The Appellant expressed deep remorse for his actions and testified that he has sought therapy since the removal, was taking medication and had made lifestyle changes including improved sleep, diet and avoidance of stressors. He also testified that he would be willing to participate in anger management, animal sensitivity training or any other program deemed necessary.

72The Appellant also testified that he had been in therapy for various issues since the age of 19 (he was 44 at the time of the hearing), yet those years of therapy failed to prevent him from engaging the violent behaviour which led to Bella’s initial removal.

73The Appellant did not provide evidence from his treating mental health professional addressing his progress, potential triggers for violence or an opinion as to the likeliness of future violence towards Bella. While the Appellant has sought treatment, there is no evidence to establish the nature, duration or effectiveness of that treatment in reducing the risk of recurrence.

74The Appellant did not provide any expert evidence with regard to his ability to safely care for Bella should she be returned to him. As such, the Board has little to no evidence demonstrating sustained behavioural change.

75I therefore conclude that the Appellant has not met his onus of demonstrating that the circumstances that resulted in Bella being kept in the Respondent’s care have ceased to exist.

76The Application for Bella’s return is therefore dismissed.

ORDER

77For the reasons set out above, I find that Bella was in distress at the time of the removal and the removal was necessary to alleviate her distress.

78I find the costs incurred by the Respondent were reasonable and necessary, and therefore confirm the SOA and order the Appellant to pay $5048.80 to the Minister of Finance.

79I find that the conditions that caused Bella to be kept in the Respondent’s care have not ceased to exist, and that returning Bella would place her at risk of future distress, such that Bella should not be returned to the Appellant. The Application for Return is therefore dismissed.