Cassandra Keuhl v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 215

Animal Care Review Board

Date: February 27, 2026

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

Between:

Cassandra Keuhl Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Soumya Sanyal, Counsel Cassandra Keuhl, Appellant

For the Respondent: Adrien Iafrate, Counsel Scott Brown, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services

Heard by Videoconference: December 22, 2025, January 5 and 20, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Cassandra Keuhl (Appellant) appeals to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) the removal of 29 domestic and exotic animals (animals) from her property. She also appeals to the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) to keep the animals in its care and makes an application for the return of the animals.

2On November 5, 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) served a Notice of Removal (NOR) on the Appellant, listing the following animals that had been removed from her property, and the conditions of distress the Respondent had identified:

Domestic rabbits (11)¹

Blue Tongue Skink (1)

Eurasian Lynx (2 adults)

Hermans Tortoise (1)

Eurasian Lynx (1 juvenile)

Chinchillas (2)

Foxes (2: 1 red, 1 silver)

Red Footed Tortoise (4)

Eurasian Eagle Owls (3)

Sulcata Tortoise (1)

Harris Hawk (1)

3The parties consented to the appeal of the removal and the application for return being heard at the same time pursuant to s. 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. This hearing began on December 22, 2025.

4On December 18, 2025, AWS served a Notice of Decision to Keep Animal(s) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (DTK). On December 23, 2025, the Appellant appealed the decision to keep the animals in care (DTK). The parties agreed that an additional hearing day would be added to the one already underway to address the DTK appeal together with the earlier appeal and the application, and the hearing continued on January 20, 2026.

5The Appellant testified on her own behalf, submitting her position regarding the removal of the animals, that they were not in distress, should not have been removed, should not have been kept in the Respondent’s care, and should be returned to her.

6The Respondent submitted its position that the animals were in distress, and it was necessary to remove the animals on November 5, 2025. It further submitted that the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if the animals were returned to the Appellant, and that many of the animals were still in active medical distress and it was necessary to keep them in care. Finally, the Respondent submitted that the animals should not be returned to the Appellant.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

7The issues in dispute are:

NOR Appeal (17988/ACRB):

1. Were the animals in distress at the time of removal? If so, was it necessary for AWS to remove them to alleviate their distress?

Decision to Keep Appeal (18119/ACRB):

2. Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?

3. Was it necessary to keep the animals in care to relieve their distress?

4. Should the Board order that some or all of the animals taken into the Respondent’s care be returned to the Appellant?

Application for Return (17986/ACRB):

5. Have the conditions that caused the animals to be removed ceased to exist such that they can be returned to the Appellant?

RESULT

8The Board dismisses the appeal of the removal of the animals, and the appeal of the Respondent’s decision to keep the animals. The Board finds that the animals were in distress when they were removed from the Appellant’s property. It further finds that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant, and it was necessary for the Respondent to keep the animals in care to relieve their distress.

9The Board dismisses the application for the return of the animals. The Board finds that the conditions that caused the animals’ distress have not ceased to exist.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

The Respondent’s Late Filing

10The Respondent submitted photos and videos that it intended to rely on at the hearing on December 16, 2025, at 6:33 pm via the Board’s secure site. Pursuant to Rule 6.2(e), these were deemed to have been received on December 17, 2025, and were therefore filed past the deadline of 12:00 p.m. on December 16, 2025. The Respondent did not file a motion explaining the reason for the delay and requesting that the Board accept the late filing.

11The Appellant did not object to the Board accepting this late evidence as the photos and videos were provided to her by the Respondent in disclosure and she had had an opportunity to review them. On this basis, I accepted the evidence.

Appellant’s Late Disclosure in the DTK Appeal

12The parties had consented to a disclosure deadline of January 5, 2026, as it related to material for the DTK appeal, and a deadline to file hearing materials with the Board by 12:00 p.m. on January 7, 2026.

13At the start of the third day of the hearing, on January 20, 2026, the Respondent advised that the Appellant did not provide her disclosure until 9:00 p.m. on Friday, January 16, 2026, and the Respondent did not receive it until Monday, January 19, 2026.

14The Respondent further advised that the Appellant did not file hearing materials with the Board until Sunday, January 18, 2026, and the Respondent received these on Monday, January 19, 2026.

15The Respondent asked the Board not to accept the late evidence because the delay violated the Board’s order made following the case conference and prejudiced the Respondent.

16The Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s materials included information regarding an inspection by AWS and a care plan, both of which occurred after the DTK was issued and were therefore not relevant to it.

17The Appellant sought to rely on the materials in her application for the return of the animals but consented to withdraw them because the Respondent indicated he would not be calling evidence on the recent inspection.

18I ruled that I would not accept the remaining late filings, on the basis that to do so would be prejudicial to the Respondent as it had not received them until the day before the hearing of the DTK appeal and had not had an opportunity to review the materials, nor to prepare cross-examinations or witnesses in response to the evidence.

Expert Evidence

19The Respondent called Dr. Pauline Delnatte as a witnessnd asked to have her qualified as an expert. Her qualifications stemmed from her initial training (4 years) in Zoological medicine, followed by a 5-year residency program specializing in zoo animals, wildlife, and exotic animals. She is certified in Canada, Europe, and the United States. She has been licensed to practice as a veterinarian in Ontario since 2010. The Respondent sought to qualify her as a veterinary expert to include non-domestic zoo animals.

20The Appellant questioned whether Dr. Delnatte’s training included animal behaviour. Dr. Delnatte explained that it did, but that she was not a specialist.

21I qualified Dr. Delnatte as an expert witness in veterinary medicine and permitted her to provide limited observations and conclusions regarding animal behaviour within the confines of her training and education.

ANALYSIS

(1) NOTICE OF REMOVAL APPEAL

The animals were in distress at the time of their removal

22For the reasons that follow, I find that the animals removed by AWS were all in distress prior to their removal.

23Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (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.

24In Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (2022 ONSC 6632), para [52], distress was also found to exist where an owner or custodian failed to provide the standards of care described in Ontario Regulation 444/19 Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements (Regulation), which relates to the definition in the PAWS Act of distress from a lack of proper care.

25The basic standards of care for all animals are set out in s. 3 of the Regulation, which addresses the following:

(1) Adequate and appropriate food and water;

(2) Adequate and appropriate medical attention;

(3) Care necessary for general welfare;

(4) Transported in a manner ensuring physical safety and general welfare;

(5) Adequate and appropriate resting and sleeping area

(6) Adequate and appropriate:

(a) Space to enable an animal to move naturally and to exercise;

(b) Sanitary conditions;

(c) Ventilation;

(d) Light; and

(e) Protection from the elements, including harmful temperatures.

7. Where an animal is confined in a pen or other enclosed structure or area, it

(a) Must be in a state of good repair;

(b) And any surfaces, structures and materials in it must be made of and contain only materials that are:

i. Safe and non-toxic for the animal, and

ii. Of a texture and design that will not bruise, cut or otherwise injure the animal; and

(c) Must not contain one or more other animals that may pose a danger to the animal.

26Section 5 of the Regulation provides additional standards of care for wildlife kept in captivity. These include the need for creating compatible social groups to ensure the general welfare of individual animals, and to ensure that animals are not at risk of injury or undue stress from dominant animals of the same or a different species.

27Section 6 of the Regulation provides additional standards of care for wildlife kept in captivity related to standards for enclosures, including that a pen or other enclosed structure or area:

1. Must be of an adequate and appropriate size to facilitate and stimulate natural movement and behaviour;

2. Must have features and furnishings that facilitate and stimulate the natural movement and behaviour of each animal;

3. Be made of and only contain materials that are safe and non-toxic, and of a texture and design that won’t bruise, cut or otherwise injure the animals.

4. And any gates or barriers to it, including moats, must be designed, constructed and locked or otherwise secured to prevent animals from escaping or other animals from entering the area by climbing, jumping, digging, burrowing, or by any other means.

5. And any gates or other barriers to it, including moats, must be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that presents no harm to the wildlife within.

28In support of the finding that the animals were in distress at the time they were removed, I rely on the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses: Inspector Maryanne Pryor, Inspector Kimberly Young, and Dr. Pauline Delnatte. In general, the animals were removed from the Appellant’s property because of the following conditions:

1. Inadequate food and water;

2. Poor sanitary conditions;

3. Insufficient enclosure space, and enrichment;

4. Hazardous conditions creating a risk of injury;

5. Several animals were injured, sick or in pain, with inadequate or no medical attention; and

6. Psychological hardship, because individual animals were not placed in necessary social groupings for their breed, and many lacked appropriate lighting.

29I consider each of these causes of distress in more detail below.

Inadequate food and water

30I am persuaded by the Respondent’s submissions that many of the animals lacked food and/or water. Examples included:

1. The two adult Eurasian Lynx who had some water, but it was contaminated with leaves, and they had no food;

2. The juvenile Lynx, housed separately from the adults, had no food and only 2 cm of contaminated water;

3. The female red Fox had no food or water;

4. The male red Fox (silver coloured) had no food, and the water was contaminated with leaves;

5. The Rabbits (11) and the Chinchillas (2) had no water, no pellets and no fresh produce;

6. The Harris Hawk had no food or water;

7. The Eurasian Eagle Owls (3) had contaminated water;

8. The Skink (1) had dry left-over food, and only 2 cm of soiled water;

9. The Hermann Tortoise who had dry leftover food and no water; and

10. The Red footed Tortoises (4) and the Sulcata Tortoise, who had no food or water.

31I also accept Dr. Delnatte evidence, finding that some of the animals had thin body condition, assessed by a lower-than-average body condition score, and some were dehydrated, which supported that they had inadequate food and water. These included the juvenile Lynx, the Rabbits (who were also dehydrated), the Chinchillas (dehydrated), the Harris Hawk, the Hermann Tortoise (dehydrated), and the Red footed Tortoises (dehydrated).

32The Appellant testified that during the period from October 31 through November 5, 2025, she came to the property daily in the afternoon for a couple of hours to feed the animals. She said the inspection took place in the morning before she arrived at the property to feed and water the animals on the day or removal. She provided a detailed feeding schedule to support her position that the animals were well fed.

33I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s evidence. Her feeding schedule may reflect what her intent was, however, it showed feedings were to occur in both morning and afternoon, but her testimony was that she was only feeding the animals once in the afternoon. This is supported by her other evidence which included a document titled “Eco Fauna – Temporary PM-Only Feeding Schedule,” however it doesn’t address all the animals.

34I prefer Dr. Delnatte’s evidence. She attended the property and examined the animals, finding that the animals lacked fresh water, and that many were either dehydrated and/or below average weight for their species. She testified that she reviewed the Appellant’s feeding schedule, but there was no evidence to support that the Appellant was following the schedule on November 5, 2026.

35In conclusion, the animals were in distress as they lacked food and/or water at the time of the November 5, 2026, inspection, and evidence indicates that many were below ideal weight (BCS) and/or dehydrated. This finding is based on the Respondent’s evidence relating to a failure to comply with s. 3(1) of the Regulation, regarding providing the animals with adequate and appropriate food and water.

Poor sanitary conditions

36I am persuaded by the Respondent’s evidence that many of the animals were kept in poor sanitary conditions. These included the Rabbits, who had an accumulation of feces below the hutches estimated to be equivalent to one month. The Chinchillas also had an accumulation of feces, estimated at several weeks. The floor beneath the perch of the Harris Hawk and the walls behind it were coated with feces and urine, which Dr. Delnatte estimated the enclosure had not been cleaned in months.

37The Appellant testified that any of the conditions observed were short-lived and due to her having less time to spend on the animals between October 31 and November 5, 2025.

38I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s evidence. I prefer that of Dr. Delnatte, who testified that the accumulation of feces represented considerably more than one week’s worth of accumulation in many of the enclosures and cages.

39In conclusion, the Rabbits, the Chinchillas, and the Hawk were in distress due to the poor sanitary conditions, which had existed for considerably more than the one week described by the Appellant. This finding is based on the Respondent’s evidence relating to a failure to comply with s. 3(6)(b) of the Regulation.

Insufficient enclosure space and enrichment

40Dr. Delnatte’s testified that in her opinion many of the animals lacked sufficient enclosure space and enrichment. These included, for example:

1. The Eurasian Lynx adults, who had a small pen size and lacked enclosure complexity for enrichment. Their enclosure had no shelter or bedding.

2. The juvenile Lynx who was kept in the house basement inside a wire dog crate that also contained a cat litter box and a dog carrier, limiting its ability to move naturally. The crate contained no bedding, no enrichment features or furnishings and no vertical space.

3. The female red Fox was kept in a metal dog crate inside the garage. The fox was kept in darkness, in the cold, and the crate had no enrichment features or furnishings.

4. The male red Fox was housed alone in an enclosure with a play structure and shelter. The enclosure had limited features and furnishings, and no appropriate bedding, platform, or vertical space.

5. The Rabbits were kept outside in hutches and not separated by gender. The hutches had no bedding and no appropriate resting areas, and the floors were constructed of wired mesh. The hutches contained no enrichment features.

6. The Chinchillas were kept in a cage within a cage in the basement. They were not provided with bedding or resting areas, and had no hide, no dust bath, and no enrichment other than a wire exercise wheel.

7. The Harris Hawk was kept outside in a metal container. The hawk had only a single perch available for use. Excessive wear indicated perch rotation had not occurred regularly; two other perches lay on the ground.

8. Two of the three Eurasian Owls were kept in an enclosure outdoors. The size of the enclosure was insufficient to allow for natural flight, and shelter and enrichment needed to be provided.

9. One of the Eurasian Owls was kept in a pen outdoors attached to a small wooden shed. No enrichment was provided.

10. The reptiles (the Skink, and the various Tortoises) need a source of heat to thermoregulate and to perform basic physiological functions. They need a thermal gradient that includes their preferred optimal temperature and a cooler area to allow them to choose location. All the reptile enclosures were significantly colder than recommended for the species, predisposing them to medical issues. UVB lighting is required during the day. Tortoises require space to move freely, to dig, hide and soak. The enclosures lacked the necessary complexity and fresh water needed for the reptiles to soak and shed properly. A lack of this led to loss of distal phalanges and nails.

41I acknowledge the Appellant’s testimony that the enclosures of the Juvenile Lynx and the female red Fox were temporary while they were healing from injuries, however she did not describe how long “temporary” was, and it was my understanding this had been more than a few days for each of them. Because of this, they were in distress.

42While the Appellant submitted a “Feeding & Enrichment Schedule”, she acknowledged that she had not been doing enrichment activities between October 31 and November 5, 2025. I find that the lack of enrichment goes beyond this, relying on Dr. Delnatte’s report of the need for features in the animals’ enclosures, and the size and height of the enclosures, to allow for their natural behaviours, and that these were not evident.

43The Appellant also submitted an overview of her care of the Lynx titled “Comprehensive Summary of Eurasian Lynx Husbandry, Enrichment, and Welfare” with a description of the Appellant’s husbandry for the Lynx, including environmental complexity, species-appropriate enrichment and photographs to demonstrate the health of the lynx, including their physical wellbeing, and their behaviours. I was not persuaded by this evidence. Instead, I rely on Dr. Delnatte’s expert opinion that at the time of the inspection, the enclosures were not the scale required to allow natural movement for many of the animals, and that they lacked appropriate enrichment features.

44In conclusion, I find that all the animals were in distress due to insufficient enclosure space and enrichment. This finding is based on the Respondent’s evidence relating to a failure to comply with s. 3(5) and one or more of s. 6(1), 6(2), 6(3), 6(4) and 6(5) of the Regulation.

Hazardous Conditions

45I am persuaded by Dr. Delnatte’s testimony that in her opinion many of the animals were exposed to hazardous conditions, creating a risk of injury. These included, for example:

1. The Eurasian Lynx adults, whose shelter included an exposed dig barrier, a broken plastic house with sharp edges, and large diameter chain-link fencing.

(b) The female red Fox was kept in a metal dog crate inside the garage. It had dislodged several clips along the front of the crate, making it unsafe. Multiple hazards existed around the crate, including general clutter and garbage, insulation, debris, and electrical wires.

3. The male red Fox (silver coloured) was housed in an enclosure with a play structure and shelter, but the fence mesh was not small enough to prevent it from being able to push its legs through the openings, and there was exposed chain link fencing on the floor, both creating a risk of injury.

4. The outdoor rabbit hutches were not predator proof. Rats were observed outside the enclosure, presenting safety concerns.

5. The Harris Hawk was kept outside in a metal container; the wire dig barrier on the ground was exposed, presenting hazards.

6. Two of the three Eurasian owls were kept in an enclosure outdoors. The pen was in a state of disrepair, creating opportunities for predators to enter. Other hazards included an exposed wire dig barrier at the ground level, and exposed sharp nails.

7. The Reptiles were kept in tanks inside the living room of the house; however, the tops weren’t properly covered, putting them at risk from a Bengal cat in the same area.

46Furthermore, as will be seen below, the Appellant advised Dr. Delnatte that the Juvenile Lynx was injured by one of its parents behaving aggressively towards it; I rely on the evidence of Dr. Delnatte that housing the Juvenile Lynx with the male parent is inappropriate for this reason.

47The Appellant also advised Dr. Delnatte that the red Fox suffered a leg injury caused by the enclosure fencing.

48In conclusion, I find that the Lynx, the Foxes, the Rabbits, the Harris Hawk, the Eurasian Owls, and the Reptiles were all exposed to hazards that put them at risk of injury, causing distress. This finding is based on the Respondent’s evidence relating to a failure to comply with s. 3(7), and s. 6(3), 6(4) and 6(5) of the Regulation.

The animals were injured, sick or in pain, with inadequate or no medical attention

49I am persuaded by Dr. Delnatte’s evidence that many of the animals were injured, sick or in pain, with inadequate or no medical attention. These included:

1. The adult female Lynx, who had a missing upper canine;

2. The juvenile Lynx, who had a leg injury, noticeable decrease of muscle mass in areas, and partially healed bite mark;

3. The female red Fox, who had a right front leg injury;

4. The Skink, who had retained shed along its back and sides and was missing most of its distal phalanges and nails;

5. The Hermann Tortoise, who had a markedly overgrown upper beak and long nails, and

6. All of the Red Footed Tortoises, who had significant, clear ocular discharge, and several who had chronic carapace deformities and elongated upper beaks.

50The Appellant testified at length about her experience in dealing with exotic animals and submitted that her care of the animals was appropriate and that the animals were not in distress. The Appellant testified that she was experienced in dealing with exotic animals, pointing to her being professionally trained by one of the facilities currently boarding her animals (Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo), and that she had 15 years of working experience as a veterinary technician assistant.

51The Appellant testified that the conditions of several of the animals had pre-existed her ownership of them. These included the tortoises, adopted from a rescue facility in 2015. She provided no records to support this.

52Initially the Appellant submitted that the animals were all under the care of veterinarians, and that this care included annual checkups, and more frequent visits when there was an issue. She later acknowledged however that many of the animals were not under the care of a veterinarian (e.g. the 6 Tortoises, although one was seen 10 years ago; the Rabbits, the Chinchillas, and the Skink).

53The Appellant submitted medical records as evidence that she took her animals to the veterinarians regularly, however she did not testify regarding the contents. I reviewed the medical records and find that that they represent very few of the animals. The records include the following:

1. The female Lynx has a laboratory report from October 2022 regarding parasites, a patient chart for her from December 2023 for a swollen muzzle, with a recommendation to extract the two roots of a tooth (see para [44] above). There is no evidence that the Appellant followed up on this recommendation.

2. A clinical summary for the female red Fox from August 2025 regarding her front leg injury.

3. A patient chart for the male Lynx dated December 2023, which appears to be a checkup;

4. A patient chart for the male red Fox, dated December 2023, with no information.

5. A clinical summary for the male Owl from July 2025, regarding a concern that he may have eaten a rat contaminated with poison. There is no record of the Owl being treated for its eye condition.

54The Appellant submitted two letters of recommendation from Fisher Glen Animal Hospital (dated November 10, 2025) attesting that they are the veterinarian who provided veterinary treatment for the Eurasian Lynx, and the red Fox, and preventative care including vaccinations, parasite prevention and dietary management. In both letters, Dr. Stephanie Tait-Nickel wrote that the Appellant provides a safe, enriching environment, and prioritizes proper nutrition, socialization, and overall well-being for her animals. However, these letters were not persuasive as it does not appear that the red Fox was treated outside of the period from April 2025 through August 2025, when she was injured. The other visits were for a health exam, vaccines, and booster shots. There is also no indication that the veterinarian ever attended the Appellant’s property to assess the environment and provisions for socialization, which she attested to in her letters, making them less reliable to me. The Appellant did not submit a clinical report for the female Lynx that the veterinarian apparently treated.

55In summary, while it appears that the Appellant took some animals to be seen by veterinarians for preventative care such as vaccines and boosters, there is no evidence to indicate that all of the animals received regular preventative care. It appears more likely that the Appellant takes animals when they are injured, and only when she considers it to be an issue. For example, there was no evidence of her seeking care for the Owl’s eye, the Skink’s inability to properly shed, or the conditions of the Tortoises.

56It also does not appear that the Appellant followed up on recommended actions such as the tooth extractions for the female Lynx. Other than the female red Fox’s leg injury in August 2025, and the concern that the male Owl may have been poisoned from eating a rat in July 2025, there were no other recent reports.

57Despite her testimony regarding pre-existing conditions of some of the animals, the Appellant did not provide any records of this, nor evidence that she took them to a veterinarian for assessment.

58In conclusion, I find that the animals were in distress as many were injured, sick, in pain or suffering, which is consistent with s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act. This finding is based on the Respondent’s evidence relating to a failure to comply with s. 3(2) of the Regulation.

Psychological hardship

59Dr. Delnatte testified, giving her opinion that many of the animals were subject to conditions causing them psychological hardship. These included:

1. The juvenile Lynx suffered psychological distress from being bitten by one of its parents. This aggression was the result of being housed with both parents, which was information Dr. Delnatte was provided by the Appellant during the inspection. It was inappropriate to be housed with its father.

2. The juvenile Lynx, being housed in darkness, and being housed adjacent to two large-breed dogs.

3. The female red Fox suffered because of unacceptable housing conditions which included being kept in a metal dog crate inside the garage, in the cold, in darkness, and with no enrichment features or furnishings.

4. The female red Fox was not being allowed outside to exercise because of the bandaging on its front leg, and no opportunity for socialization.

5. The male red Fox (silver coloured), housed alone, who had no meaningful opportunity for exercise or socialization.

6. The Harris Hawk who was kept in darkness.

7. The reptiles who were found to be in darkness. Timing of lighting, in her opinion, is very important to reptiles.

60The Appellant did not testify regarding the psychological distress described by Dr. Delnatte, other than to explain that:

1. The foxes were separated so the female Fox could heal.

2. The animals were not normally housed in darkness. The day of the inspection was rainy and overcast, so the natural light normally relied on was not available. The Hawk’s enclosure was darkened by the layer of leaves that had fallen from the trees during the rainfall.

3. The electrical lighting was turned on at night rather than during the day when hydro was cheaper, and the timing of the lighting didn’t affect the reptiles.

61In conclusion, I find that the juvenile Lynx, and the 2 Foxes experienced psychological distress, consistent with s. 1(1)(c) of the PAWS Act. This finding is based on the Respondent’s evidence relating to a failure to comply with s. 5(3) of the Regulation regarding animals being kept in compatible social groupings to ensure that each animal in the group is not at risk of injury or undue stress from dominant animals of the same or a different species, as it applied to the juvenile Lynx being housed inappropriately with its father, and later being separated from its mother. This finding is also based on the Respondent’s evidence of a failure to comply with s. 6(1)(b) of the Regulation as it relates to the juvenile Lynx being housed inappropriately adjacent to large breed dogs, causing undue stress.

62I further find that the Foxes experienced psychological distress as they were not given opportunities for exercise, which is a failure to comply with s. 5(2), and were not housed together, allowing for socialization, which is a failure to comply with s. 5(3) for their general welfare, accepting the Respondent’s evidence that being kept in social groupings is their natural state. I recognize the Appellant’s reasoning to keep the Foxes apart, however these conditions caused distress regardless.

63Finally, I find that keeping the juvenile Lyn, the female red Fox, the Harris Hawk, and the Reptiles in darkness creates psychological distress, accepting the evidence of Dr. Delnatte that their natural needs are for lighting. Distress is related to the failure to comply with s. 3(6)(d) of the Regulation.

64In summary, I find that each of the 29 animals that were removed were in some form of distress as defined by the PAWS Act and the Regulation. The Respondent’s evidence was compelling that the conditions were not indicative of a lack of attention only on the morning of November 5, 2025, nor of the week between October 31, 2025, through November 5, 2025. Many of the animals lacked food and/or water and showed a low body condition score and/or dehydration. Many of the animals’ enclosures were of an inappropriate size, height, and lacked appropriate enrichment, and many indicated ongoing neglect of cleaning. Many of the animals were in need of medical attention, with little indication that they received annual preventative care or even attention to injuries or medical conditions. Many of the animals were not housed in appropriate social groupings, and/or in darkness; as a result they experienced psychological distress.

Was it necessary for AWS to remove the 29 animals to relieve their distress?

65I find that it was necessary to remove the animals to relieve their distress for the reasons that follow.

66The Appellant testified that the Respondent issued orders requiring her to meet various requirements for the other animals on the property that were not removed, and that she complied with these promptly. She suggested that AWS could have issued orders to improve conditions for the animals who were removed, and that it was unnecessary to remove them.

67Initially, the Appellant testified that she was correcting the hazards in the enclosures identified by the Respondent, and that it would only take her a few days to construct new enclosures to suit the standards referenced by the Respondent. The Appellant acknowledged that while she had materials on the property, she had not completed construction of new enclosures.

68The animals were removed pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (the PAWS Act), where a veterinarian advised that removal was necessary to relieve the animals’ distress. After inspecting the animals and their living conditions herself on November 5, 2025, Dr. Delnatte signed a Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of Animal(s) (Certificate) on November 5, 2025, listing the 29 animals she was advising should be removed.

69Inspector Pryer testified that she decided to remove the animals after discussions with Dr. Delnatte, and receiving her Certificate, and because the animals were not provided with the basic standards of care required in the Regulation.

70Inspector Pryer testified that the ten animals who were not removed were left because while the animals were considered to be in distress, it was not to the same extent as the ones removed. The inspector issued an order for the animals that remained, including the need for cleaning the cages and providing clean water and proper food, and the Appellant complied with it. Inspector Pryer further justified not removing three of the animals as they were boarded animals with one going back to the owner the next day and the other two (cockatiels) had a clean setup.

71I am persuaded by Dr. Delnatte’s opinion that:

The decision to remove those 29 individuals was made based on the physical and/or psychological state of distress of the animals combined with the substandard housing conditions those animals were subject to. In my professional opinion, removal of those 29 individuals was necessary to alleviate their distress as the multitude sources of distress could not be readily addressed on site.

72In conclusion, I find that it was necessary to remove the 29 animals because of the degree of distress they experienced, to provide them with care that met the standards of care applicable to their species to relieve them of their distress.

(2) DECISION TO KEEP APPEAL

The Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that it was necessary to keep the animals in the CAWI’s care

73I find that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to issue the DTK for the reasons that follow.

74Section 31(6) of the PAWS Act states that:

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) may decide to keep an animal that was removed under ss. (1) or (2) in the CAWI’s care if,

(a) The CAWI determines it is necessary to relieve the animal’s distress; or

(b) The CAWI has reasonable grounds to believe that,

i. The animal may be placed in distress if returned to its owner or custodian.

75Regional Supervisor Scott Brown (RS Brown) testified that he was delegated by the CAWI under the PAWS Act and had the authority to issue the DTK. He became involved in the case following the removal of the animals. He explained the process of making the decision to keep animals was initiated by an internal request from Inspector Pryer, which included a form and a file of supporting documents. These included the inspector’s duty notes, the expert report of Dr. Delnatte, veterinarian reports post-removal, and photos and videos taken on the property the day of removal.

76RS Brown testified that his decision was made based on information provided at a “point in time” based on the file materials, and that he had not received any information from the Appellant that she had addressed any of the issues listed in the NOR by the time he made the decision to keep the animals in care.

77RS Brown testified that he determined that the Appellant lacked both the expertise and the skill to care for the animals, based on the environmental conditions of the animals’ housing, and the animals’ poor medical condition. He also concluded that the Appellant lacked financial resources to care for the animals, based on the Appellant’s responses to the inspectors.

It was necessary to keep the animals in care to relieve their distress (s. 31(6)(a))

78RS Brown testified regarding untreated medical conditions which had been resolved for many of the animals while they were in the Respondent’s care.

79RS Brown testified that, while many of the animals had improved while in the Respondent’s care and were no longer considered to be in medical distress, the following animals continued to be treated for medical distress and it was necessary to keep them in care to relieve their distress (pursuant to s. 31(6)(a), PAWS Act):

1. The adult female Lynx

2. The juvenile Lynx

3. The female red Fox

4. The male red Fox (silver coloured)

5. The Eurasian Eagle Owl

6. The Red Footed Tortoises (4).

80Dr. Delnatte’s expert report indicates the documents, photographs and videos she reviewed and considered to compile it; these were all included in the Respondent’s evidence. These included 14 Intake Examination Forms for the animals, medical records and X-Ray scans for both adult Lynx, and the juvenile Lynx; medical records for the Hermann Tortoise, the female Red Fox, and the male Red Fox; anesthesia monitoring forms for the Foxes, a hospital referral report for the female Red Fox; and email correspondence regarding the Owl.

81Dr. Delnatte testified regarding the animals’ medical conditions post-removal. She stated that the animals were transported on November 5, 2025, to two different boarding places (Little Rays Reptile Zoo in Sarsfield, Ontario) and Saffari Niagara (in Stevensville, Ontario) and that she conducted an intake examination of the animals at these facilities the day after their removal. The next day, the two foxes were transferred from Little Rays to Riverview Park and Zoo in Peterborough, Ontario because Little Rays was unable to provide long-term boarding for them.

82Dr. Delnatte testified that Dr. Christine Toth was responsible for 17 animals at Saffari Niagara, and that she herself was involved in the veterinary care on a weekly basis. For the 12 animals at Little Rays and Riverview Park, Dr. Delnatte followed up with 10 directly, and 1 Owl recheck with Dr. Laitie. She added that Riverview Park has its own veterinarian, but she went twice to examine the Foxes.

83In her testimony, Dr. Delnatte reviewed the specific findings of each animal post-removal, in detail. This included the following:

1. Adult female Lynx – intestinal parasites, ear mites, missing upper left canine (active medical issue); still under medical care.

2. Juvenile Lynx – tibia fractured early in life, end of September 2025. Appellant had been advised by surgeon that the plate used to repair the fracture had to be removed but had not had this done. Respondent consulting with a surgeon. There was evidence of a second wound where staples should have been removed but had not been.

3. Female Red fox – injured front leg end of August. Major injury and casted, but the cast was left on too long, and now the limb lacked mobility. She was monitoring as it may be necessary to amputate the leg.

4. Male Red Fox (silver coloured) – canine broken, may require dental treatment.

5. Eurasian Eagle Owl #18 – chest issue, lack of muscle development and indication of poor body condition; may be due to lack of opportunity to fly.

6. Eurasian Eagle Owl #19 – right eye mainly shut at time of removal – diagnosed as corneal ulcer. Treated.

7. Skink – after removal placed in box with high humidity; after 1-week it shed fully.

8. Tortoises – Hermann Tortoise – beak flaking off, creating issues with cracking; trimmed beak. Red Footed Tortoise #23 (of 5) – pyramiding will never improve.

84The Appellant did not contest the Respondent’s evidence regarding the ongoing medical care of the nine animals, nor make submissions that she could provide for this care.

85In summary, I find that it was necessary to keep the nine animals described in paragraph [75] in the CAWI’s care because they were still being treated for medical issues, and further because the Appellant didn’t make submissions that she could provide for their treatment.

The animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant (s. 31(6)(b)

86RS Brown testified that on the date he made his decision, he had reasonable grounds to believe that all the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant, as the basic standards of care for the animals had not been met leading to their distress at the time of removal (s. 31(6)(b)(i)). He described the environmental conditions the animals were found in (as described in the NOR and in Dr. Delnatte’s evidence).

87RS Brown further testified that the Appellant had demonstrated a lack of proper husbandry practices, and that they weren’t what a reasonable animal caregiver would do, giving as examples the level of accumulated feces in the rabbit hutches, the base of the rabbit hutches being open mesh and not a solid base, the temperature within the Skink enclosure, and the Harris hawk having only one perch and living in darkness.

88RS Brown testified that he concluded that all 29 of the animals would be placed into distress if returned to the Appellant because these examples demonstrated a persistent lack of care across all the animals.

89The Appellant testified regarding the regular care she provided the animals, giving as examples how she checked for ear mites and cared for the female red Fox’ injury, and the veterinary care provided for the juvenile Lynx. She also testified that the juvenile Lynx and the female red Fox were only temporarily housed due to their injuries.

90The Appellant testified that she was unaware that she could ask the Respondent for a compliance inspection, however the Respondent pointed to a statement on page 2 of the DTK which stated that “if the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the CAWI’s care, as set out in my reasons above have ceased to exist, please contact myself or the inspector. Alternatively, you may file an Application for Return of the Animal(s) with the Board seeking the return of your animal(s)”.

91I am persuaded by the Respondent’s evidence that at the time the DTK was issued, RS Brown had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant, both because there was no evidence that she had addressed any of the environmental issues at that time, and because of the evidence of the persistent lack of care of the animals.

92In conclusion, I find that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that it was necessary to keep the animals in its care when it issued the DTK. This is supported by the evidence that nine animals still required care to relieve their medical distress (s. 31(6)(a) of the PAWS Act), and that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that all of the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant (s. 31(6)(b)) as she had not made efforts to improve the environmental conditions since the animals were removed from her care.

3) APPLICATION FOR RETURN

93For the reasons that follow, I find that the conditions that caused the animals to be removed on November 5, 2026, and to be kept in the CAWI’s care based on the DTK issued on December 18, 2025, have not ceased to exist.

94Section 38(4) of the PAWS Act permits an applicant to apply to the Board for the return of their animals if the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in or taken into the CAWI’s care have ceased to exist.

95Although the Appellant filed her Application for Return with the Board on November 14, 2025, in advance of the DTK being issued, a decision to return the animals should be based on current information.

96In an Application for Return the burden to demonstrate that the animals would not be returned to conditions that would cause distress is on the applicant.

97Throughout the hearing, the Appellant testified regarding the care she provided the animals, the veterinarian oversight, her “Enrichment & Feeding Schedule”, and her willingness to address hazards in the enclosures, and to build new enclosures. She provided drawings of proposed new enclosures that she was willing to construct.

98Dr. Delnatte testified that she had several reasons for not supporting the return of the animals to the Appellant, including her opinion that:

1. Active medical care was still required for some of the animals, and some required more time before being elevated from medical distress (juvenile Lynx and female red Fox).

2. Other medical concerns such as ear mites, the Owl’s closed eye and intestinal parasites – were missed or not addressed by the Appellant. She is concerned that there was no veterinarian oversight.

3. On November 5, 2025, the animals were in severe distress. For several of the animals, the distress could impact them for a long time because of psychological and physical distress. Based on the medical records and post-removal conditions, and observations at the Appellant’s property, these conditions were due to both short and long-term lapse of care.

99I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s limited evidence that she has addressed any of the issues described in Appendix A of the DTK, which reflects a lack of compliance with the Regulation. The Appellant shows no evidence that she has researched available standards for proper enclosure design for the animals, nor researched the species-specific needs for them. I agree with RS Brown that the Appellant appears to lack the knowledge, expertise and skill to properly care for the animals.

100While the Appellant submitted that she intends to build enclosures, she has not yet constructed them. On this basis, she has not satisfied her burden to prove that the environmental conditions that caused the animals’ distress have ceased to exist.

101Regarding the medical distress, the Appellant has provided no evidence, such as a medical plan, to address that she is prepared to take over the care of the animals still in medical distress.

102On this basis, the Appellant has not satisfied her burden to prove that the conditions that caused the animals’ distress has been addressed. In other words, to return the animals at this time would be to place them into conditions causing distress.

103For these reasons, the application for the return of the animals is dismissed.

ORDER

104The Board dismisses the appeal of the removal of the animals, and the appeal of the Respondent’s decision to keep the animals in care.

105The Board dismisses the application for the return of the animals.

Footnotes

1. 1The NOR listed 10 rabbits. The Respondent advised that it later discovered that 11 rabbits had been removed.