Majesta Monette v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 228

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

Between:

Majesta Monette

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Majesta Monette, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel, Canaan Dalton, Student-at-Law, Tali Chernin, Counsel

Heard By Videoconference: February 20, 24, 26, March 31, April 1, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Majesta Monette (the “appellant”) is the owner/custodian of eight Chihuahua type dogs of various age, sex, colour and coat type (the “dogs”) which reside with her at her residence in Omemee (the “Property”). The dogs were removed by the respondent pursuant to a Notice of Removal (the “NOR”) dated January 11, 2026 (acknowledged by all parties to be dated January 11, 2025 in error) made under s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, R.S.O. 2019, c. 13 (“PAWS Act”) issued by Animal Welfare Inspector Samantha Delahaye.

2The NOR is based on the grounds that the appellant had not complied with three Compliance Orders (the ”COs”) issued by the respondent on December 3, 2025.

3In summary, the appellant’s Notice of Appeal for the NOR states that she had partially complied with the orders, and that the dogs are not in distress when they are with her.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

APPELLANT’S REQUEST TO RECORD HEARING

4At the beginning of the hearing the appellant requested that she be allowed to record the hearing in place of taking notes. The respondent did not object to this.

5Accordingly, the appellant was granted permission to record the hearing on her personal device in place of taking written notes and subject to the restriction that she not broadcast, post or disseminate any part of this hearing or such recording on any platform, including social media.

APPELLANT’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT FURTHER VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

6At the beginning of the hearing the appellant requested to submit further video and photographic evidence as she was unsure whether the videos and photographs she submitted for the hearing were received by the Board.

7The respondent showed the video and photographic evidence he had received from the Board to the appellant by screen sharing at the hearing, following which the appellant confirmed that this was all the video and photographic evidence she wished to submit at the hearing and there was nothing further. The video and photographic evidence shown was marked as exhibit 3 for identification, subject to further identification and subject to submissions on weight to be made during the hearing.

RESPONDENT’S REQUEST TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM APPELLANT’S WITNESSES

8The respondent requested that testimony from the appellant’s proposed witnesses Marie Monette, Michel Monette, Dave Simms, Fiona Whitney, and the appellant herself be excluded on the basis that the appellant failed to produce statements of anticipated evidence (“will say statements”) by February 11, 2026 as required by the Board’s January 30, 2026 Case Conference Report and Order and Rule 9 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended, (the “Rules”).

9The appellant said that she had spoken to her proposed witnesses but did not realize she had to provide a will-say statement for herself and her witnesses. The appellant that she would able to provide these statements in writing to the respondent on February 20, 2026, the first day of the hearing.

10Having heard the submissions of both parties, I ordered the appellant to provide will say statements to the respondent in writing by 5:00 p.m. on February 21, 2026, being one day more time than the appellant said she needed to do this. The hearing continued on February 24, 2026.

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL HEARD MARCH 31, 2026

11After three days of hearing, the respondent brought a Notice of Motion dated March 24, 2026 to dismiss this appeal (the “motion”).

12The Board directed that this motion be heard on March 31, 2026.

13In summary, the respondent’s grounds for the motion are that the animals in question in this appeal have been forfeited and the Board has no jurisdiction to continue with this hearing because the appellant has not paid, and has not appealed, a statement of account for their care. The respondent relies on the doctrine of mootness.

14The appellant did not consent to the motion.

15After hearing the submissions of both parties, I denied the motion for reasons delivered orally at the hearing which are summarized as follows. On March 31, 2026, there was still a live issue between the parties regarding the statement of account in another Board file, specifically Board file number 18369/ACRB. As the respondent acknowledged in submissions on the motion, in Board file number 18369/ACRB the Board had issued an Amended Notice of Intention to Dismiss the appeal which gave the appellant until April 3, 2026 to respond. This time had not elapsed on March 31, 2026 when the respondent’s motion was heard. Given this, it cannot be said that the appellant had not appealed the statement of account in Board file number 18369/ACRB. The appellant’s appeal rights in 18369/ACRB had not been extinguished on March 31, 2026. To the contrary, the Board had given the appellant the right to respond to its Amended Notice of Intention to Dismiss the appeal to April 3, 2026.

16As a result, the hearing continued.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

17The issues in dispute are:

1. Were the dogs in distress at the time of removal?

2. If so, was it necessary for the respondent to remove the dogs to alleviate their distress?

RESULT

18For the reasons that follow, I find that:

1. The dogs were in distress on January 11, 2026 warranting their removal, and

2. It was necessary for the respondent to remove the dogs to alleviate their distress on January 11, 2026.

THE LEGISLATION

Distress

19Distress is defined in s. 1(1) of the PAWS Act as “a 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”.

20In Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 6632, the Court found that being “in distress” is defined as being in need of proper care, and that the phrase “proper care” includes care in compliance with the minimum standards prescribed by the PAWS Act and its regulation.

21The basic standards of care for all animals are set out in Ontario Regulation 444/19 (“Regulation”) under the PAWS Act. Specifically, s. 3(6) of the Regulation requires that every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate space to enable the animal to move naturally and to exercise, sanitary conditions, ventilation, light, and protection from the elements, including harmful temperature. Further, s. 3(2) of Ontario Regulation 444/19 (“Regulation”) under the PAWS Act requires that every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate medical attention.

22Section 30(1) of the PAWS Act provides that 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, having the animal examined and treated by a veterinarian at the expense of the owner or custodian.

Removal

23Section 31(1)(c) provides that an animal welfare inspector may remove an animal from the place where it is and take possession of the animal for the purpose of relieving its distress if, a CO respecting the animal has been made and has not been complied with.

Owner’s Right to Appeal

24Section 38 provides that an owner or custodian of an animal may appeal, among other things, an order from an animal welfare inspector and a decision by an animal welfare inspector to remove an animal from a place as set out in s. 38 (1), s. 38 (2), and s. 3 of Ontario Regulation 447/19.

Powers of the Board After Hearing Appeal

25Section 38(9) of the PAWS Act gives this Board the authority, among other authorities, after a hearing, to order that an animal removed under s. 31(1) or (2), or that was taken into care by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector under s. 31(6) or 44(8), be returned to the owner or custodian

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

The Dogs Were in Distress at the Time of the Removal of the Dogs and It Was Necessary for the Respondent to Remove the Dogs to Alleviate Their Distress

26I find that the dogs were in distress at the time of the removal and it was necessary for the respondent to remove the dogs to alleviate their distress under the PAWS Act for the following reasons.

27Prior to the NOR the appellant had been made aware of the respondent’s concerns about the health of the dogs over a period of some five weeks, yet the appellant failed to comply with the three COs that had been issued by the respondent on December 3, 2025.

28Inspector Delahaye testified that on December 2, 2025 Kawartha Veterinary Emergency Clinic (the “clinic”), specifically Dr. Chouinard, the veterinarian, contacted the respondent to express concerns that the appellant had left the clinic on December 1, 2025, against medical advice with a critically ill puppy, possible parvovirus. This was followed on December 3, 2025 by a written report from the clinic to the respondent recommending that one of the eight-week old Chihuahua puppies, a blonde, be immediately removed because it is in “absolute danger of developing clinical signs and cardiovascular decompensation without immediate assessment and treatment as deemed necessary by a veterinary doctor”, that two puppies have presented requiring immediate intervention for severe infection from parvovirus enteritis which is “highly transmissible and lethal when left untreated”. The report further states that two puppies have died without veterinary intervention because all veterinary recommendations were declined, including humane euthanasia resulting in suffering and death, and that any unvaccinated dog on this property is highly at risk for contracting and suffering due to the highly infectious nature of parvovirus enteritis and asks that the respondent consider having all dogs on the property examined by a veterinary doctor as soon as possible. The clinic’s report was filed at this hearing.

29The appellant does not dispute that she declined treatment but said that the puppy was already dead when she took it to the veterinary clinic and the clinic just wanted to make money by charging her for unnecessary euthanasia so she left with the puppies.

30Inspector Delahaye testified that when she and another inspector went to the Property on December 2, 2025, she observed that the interior of the van was unsanitary. No one answered the door at the Property at that time.

31At 8:32 a.m. on December 3, 2025, Inspector Delahaye telephoned the appellant, and receiving no answer, left a voicemail expressing concern for the sick puppies. Later that morning, Inspector Delahaye and another inspector returned to the Property, and were given permission to enter by the appellant’s father Michel Monette, although she did explain they would be entering regardless due to the critical nature.

32Inspector Delahaye found the dogs to be in distress because she observed the following. Three Chihuahua type puppies were in a wooden cupboard with several levels in a concrete cellar type location. The bottom level was poorly lit with blue lighting and there was a cat box with litter in it containing diarrhea. There was a gravity water feeder contaminated with cat litter. Two of the three very small puppies were wearing shock collars. The puppies were described by Inspector Delahaye as very quiet, timid, scared, had poor gum appearance and appeared dehydrated. In this room there was a plug-in heater on top of a water tank which fell over during the inspection and did not auto shut-off. The inspectors unplugged this heater for concern as a fire hazard. On top of the water pump there was banana box containing two small puppies which were very quiet, of poor body condition, poor gum colour and dehydrated. The box contained a lot of diarrhea, had a terrible foul smell, and contained a can full of liquid with unknown white chunks floating in it. As the Property was very poorly lit, Inspector Delahaye testified that she used her flashlight for most of the inspection. Inspector Delahaye documented her observations by taking photographs of the puppies, and in her notes made at the time.

33The appellant returned to the Property during the inspection. When asked about the ill puppy that she had taken to the vet clinic on December 1, 2025, the appellant told Inspector Delahaye that the staff was rude to her and wanted to kill the puppy but she doesn’t believe in this, she brought the puppy home and it was doing better so she returned it to its owner who reported that the puppies are doing well. The appellant directed the inspectors to the exterior of the Property where they found two dead puppies in a cardboard box. When the inspectors asked the appellant about these two dead puppies, the appellant said these two died but are not the ones that were taken to the vet clinic and said she had returned the sick puppy to its owner. When the appellant asked if the dogs should be returned to their owners, Inspector Delahaye told her that due to exposure of parvovirus, they need to remain at the Property under isolation as it is highly contagious. Inspector Delahaye explained to the appellant and her father that the virus remains on surfaces, shoes, and clothing.

34Inspector Delahaye counted 13 small breed dogs of various colours, ages, sexes and breeds. Some dogs had long nails which required trimming. Some dogs were wearing a shock collar. Some were wearing two shock collars at the same time.

35The eight-week old puppies who were ill were wearing shock collars. Inspector Delahaye told the appellant that it was inappropriate for one dog to be wearing two shock collars and to remove the collars immediately.

36Inspector Delahaye observed dog and puppy food bags. The appellant told Inspector Delahaye that the large bag was left over from “Venom”, a dog removed by the respondent in 2024.

37On December 2, 2025, the inspectors removed four puppies and one puppy was left at the Property as it was brighter than the other puppies. The appellant was advised to seek medical treatment immediately if any of the animals fall ill.

38Inspector Delahaye attended the clinic with the four live and two dead puppies at approximately 1:14 p.m. December 3, 2025. The veterinarian told Inspector Delahaye that the veterinarian had been present in the clinic Monday night and identified the dead male brindle colour Chihuahua puppy as the critically ill puppy the appellant had refused treatment for and left the clinic with on Monday night. One of the dead puppies had green diarrhea on its fur. Blood was also present appearing to be from a high parasite load known as “flea dirt”, all over the dead puppy’s body.

39On December 3, 2025 at approximately 5:05 p.m. Inspector Delahaye spoke to the appellant on the telephone and explained that she would receive two additional COs by email and explained the action that these COs require. These two additional COs were sent by email to the appellant at 7:10 p.m.

40Inspector Delahaye testified that in total she issued three COs to the appellant in respect of the dogs on December 3, 2025. The first CO was handed to the appellant in person and the second and third COs were emailed to the appellant later in the day on December 3, 2025.

41I accept the evidence of Inspector Delahaye on this point given that Inspector Delahaye is an experienced inspector, testified with the aid of her notes made contemporaneously with sending the two COs to the appellant following her telephone call with the appellant, and testified with the aid of her email to the appellant at 7:10 p.m. on December 3, 2025 confirming their phone call and attaching the CO’s for the dogs. Inspector Delahaye’s email states that “The order for the 2x white longhair puppies is due by tomorrow morning. They must see a veterinarian as they were immediately in with the sick, parvo positive puppies. Should ANY of the other dogs become ill, you as custodian MUST seek veterinary care IMMEDIATELY.”

42The December 3, 2025 COs required the following actions by the following dates:

CO #1 – 11:19 a.m. - Action:

-“have the animal(s) examined by a veterinarian with special attention to “Milo”, poor body condition, overall health assessment

• Provide the animal welfare inspector with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the examination findings, and the treatments recommended and undertaken by the veterinarian, as well as a statement of treatments you have carried out at home according to the veterinarian’s recommendations (e.g. specific medication provided daily) and any further information…Continue to provide adequate and appropriate treatment and medical attention according to the examining veterinarian(s) instructions including administration of any medicine or follow up with additional appointments, treatments, or diagnostic work that the veterinarian deems medically necessary to relieve the animal’s/animals’ distress”.

Animal Description: 1 “Milo” white male chihuahua type dog, poor body condition

Compliance Date:

December 16, 2025 by 10 a.m.

CO #2 – 18:57 hrs.(6:57 p.m.) - Action:

-“have the animal(s) examined by a veterinarian with special attention to All animals in dwelling examined by a vet with attention to exposure to parvovirus enteritis body condition and overall health and wellness.”

• Provide the animal welfare inspector with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the examination findings, and the treatments recommended and undertaken by the veterinarian, as well as a statement of treatments you have carried out at home according to the veterinarian’s recommendations (e.g. specific medication provided daily) and any further information…Continue to provide adequate and appropriate treatment and medical attention according to the examining veterinarian(s) instructions including administration of any medicine or follow up with additional appointments, treatments, or diagnostic work that the veterinarian deems medically necessary to relieve the animal’s/animals’ distress”.

“Trim all nails of all dogs inside the dwelling

Increase natural light cycle inside the dwelling so that animals have natural light/dark cycle

Provide all dogs inside dwelling with potable water

Provide all dogs inside dwelling with adequate and appropriate sanitary conditions

Have all dogs inside dwelling treated with ADVANTAGE 2, and repeat as directed (keep all receipts/packaging for proof of purchase)

If using bark collar, only use one and according to manufacture guidelines & instructions

Animal Description:

1 Milo, Chihuahua, Male, beige, BCS 2/9

1 Zenia, Tan, Female Chihuahua

1 Zelda, Female Chihuahua, white long haired, biter

1 Female, white/brown chihuahua type dog, no name

1 Gonzo, Male Pom type dog, Brown

1 Puppy, longhaired, white chihuahua type dog, sex unknown wearing a bark collar

1 Puppy, black/tan chihuahua, female, unnamed

1 Puppy, longhaired, white, chihuahua, sex unknown

Compliance Date:

December 10, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.

CO #3 – 18:57 hrs (6:57 p.m.) - Action:

-“have the animal(s) examined by a veterinarian with special attention to 2x White chihuahua puppies, long haired, examinted” (examined) “by vet with attention to parvovirus enteritis exposure, body condition, parasite burden

• Provide the animal welfare inspector with documentation from the veterinarian outlining the examination findings, and the treatments recommended and undertaken by the veterinarian, as well as a statement of treatments you have carried out at home according to the veterinarian’s recommendations (e.g. specific medication provided daily) and any further information…Continue to provide adequate and appropriate treatment and medical attention according to the examining veterinarian(s) instructions including administration of any medicine or follow up with additional appointments, treatments, or diagnostic work that the veterinarian deems medically necessary to relieve the animal’s/animals’ distress”.

Treat for external parasites with ADVANTAGE2, repeat as instructed. Keep proof of purchase/package

Animal Description:

2 White, chihuahua type dogs, 8 weeks of age

Compliance Date:

December 4, 2025 at 10 a.m.

43All of the COs contain a written warning in capital letters that failure to comply with “all of the above” may result in the animals being removed.

44Inspector Delahaye testified that her post-CO communications with the appellant did not indicate compliance with the COs. The appellant told Inspector Delahaye on December 4, 2025 that despite having been told not to move any dogs, she had given puppies to another person, a claim Inspector Delahaye was not able to verify with the other person named by the appellant.

45Inspector Delahaye testified that, despite attempts to reach the appellant, she was not provided with evidence of compliance with the three December 3, 2025 COs by their respective compliance dates.

46Inspector Renaud testified that on January 11, 2026, the date of the NOR, she was off-shift when she saw the appellant in a local parking lot being arrested by the Peterborough Police Service and taken away in a police vehicle. Several Chihuahua type dogs were loose in the appellant’s van which the police had told Inspector Delahaye had been impounded and would be removed by tow truck. The police told Inspector Delahaye that the dogs needed to be removed.

47Inspector Delahaye spoke to the appellant’s father, Mr. Monette, about the dogs and he told her he wasn’t sure what to do with all the dogs. Inspector Delahaye observed several dogs wearing shock collars, some with double shock collars.

48Mr. Monette left the area, abandoning the vehicle and the dogs. After being called by the police, ultimately Peterborough Animal Services (the “PAS”) collected the dogs in impound but not until two of the dogs had been running at large and fell into the lake. Inspector Delahaye found the two dogs that fell into the lake to be in critical condition and took them to the veterinary clinic. One died and one survived after receiving veterinary treatment for hypothermia. The rest of the dogs were taken by the PAS to the Peterborough Humane Society.

49After consulting her regional supervisor, Inspector Delahaye issued the NOR dated January 11, 2026, the date the dogs were safely apprehended and another two dogs were taken for emergency care. On January 13, 2026 Inspector Delahaye attended the Peterborough Humane Society and observed that the dogs had not been returned to the appellant and remained at the Peterborough Humane Society. On the same day, Inspector Delahaye and another inspector served the NOR on the appellant at the Peterborough courthouse together with other documents. Inspector Delahaye testified that she explained all documents in detail and allowed the appellant to ask questions.

50It is clear from the evidence that the dogs were in distress on January 11, 2026 for two reasons.

51Firstly, there is no evidence before me that establishes that appellant had fully complied with the three COs. The weight of the evidence is that she did not.

52Secondly, the dogs were found in the appellant’s van on January 11, 2026, a van which Inspector Delahaye had previously observed was unsanitary. Some of the dogs were wearing shock collars. Some were wearing two shock collars. The dogs were left in the van when the appellant was arrested. The appellant’s father Mr. Monette, then abandoned the van and had no plan to care for the dogs. Two of the dogs were running at large in winter weather, as a result of which one dog died and the other required emergency veterinary treatment. There is no evidence before me that the appellant had taken any steps to obtain possession of the dogs between January 11, 2026 and January 13, 2026, or to have anyone else do so on her behalf when she was incarcerated, resulting in the appellant leaving all of the care of the dogs to the PAS. Had it not been for the stop-gap care provided by the PAS when called by the police, the dogs would have had no care at all, leaving them exposed to the January winter weather, at a time when they had not been provided with the care required by the three COs. Partial compliance with the three CO’s is not compliance with the CO’s.

53Even though the clinic’s veterinarian did not testify at the hearing and the clinic’s report is hearsay, I am satisfied, based on the testimony of Inspector Delahaye that she was advised by the clinic’s concerns for the health of the dogs. The Board can accept hearsay evidence under s. 15 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S22 (“SPPA”) and I accept the clinic’s report which is consistent with the testimony of Inspector Delahaye, her notes and records, and photographs of the dogs filed by the respondent.

54In support of her appeal, the appellant submitted various videos and photographs of the dogs and their living conditions, other animals she has had, and images of herself dealing with the various animals including a horse, a chipmunk, and other species. The appellant testified that she submitted these various videos and photographs to show that she is experienced in animal handling and has an interest in animals. However, general experience with animals is not relevant as to whether the dogs were in distress on January 11, 2026. Nothing in the appellant’s videos and photographs persuade me that she had complied fully with the three COs by January 11, 2026.

55Most notably, the appellant filed a video of a person with what appears to be a testing kit for animals, and possibly other veterinary supplies. This video does not show the person’s face or what they are doing with the supplies, or what they are doing to the dogs. The appellant admitted she doesn’t know who the person in the video is, the date on which it was taken, or by whom it was taken. Therefore, this video is of no evidentiary value in this hearing.

56In addition to her own testimony, the appellant’s witnesses included David Roy Simms, her mother Marie Monette, her father Michel Monette, David Crozier, and Fiona Whitney. None of David Roy Simms, Marie Monette, David Crozier or Fiona Whitney had any information relevant to whether the dogs were in distress on January 11, 2026. Marie Monette admitted that it has been at least one year since she saw the animals at the Property. David Crozier admitted that the last time he was at the Property was two or three years ago and he knows nothing about the appellant’s dealings with the respondent. David Roy Simms and Fiona Whitney each admitted that they were not aware of the COs or what they required the appellant to do.

57Although the appellant’s father Michel Monette testified that he helps her with the animals, he admitted that on January 11, 2026 when the appellant was arrested and there were dogs in her van, he was not able to care for the dogs when the appellant was taken away by the police.

58Nothing in the appellant’s testimony persuades me that the appellant complied fully with the COs. The appellant admitted that she preferred to treat the dogs at home and obtain advice from people she described as veterinarians. No veterinarian was called by the appellant to testify at this hearing in support of this assertion. The appellant admitted that although she had taken at least some of the dogs to the clinic, she refused recommended treatment because she didn’t think it was necessary and couldn’t afford it.

59By the end of her cross-examination the appellant admitted that she had not complied fully with all three COs dated December 3, 2025.

60Although the appellant testified at the hearing that she did not receive the NOR dated January 11, 2026 until January 13, 2026 when it was handed to her at the courthouse by Inspector Delahaye, and that this is not fair, I find no defect in this process.

61The dogs were out of the appellant’s possession on January 11, 2026 when they were taken by the PAS. However, the appellant had rights to obtain release of the dogs from the PAS by paying for their care until at least January 13, 2026 when the appellant was served with the NOR. The NOR is dated January 11, 2026, the last day the dogs were in the possession of the appellant. The NOR was served in person on the appellant on January 13, the day it was authored according to Inspector Delahaye. There was no delay in service of the NOR on the appellant, no uncertainty that it was served in person based on the testimony of Inspector Delahaye, and no unfairness in service. I also note that the alleged unfairness about service was not raised until late in this hearing, is not mentioned in the Notice of Appeal and was not identified as an issue in the Board’s January 30, 2026 Case Conference Report and Order.

62Based on the non-compliance with the three December 3, 2025 COs described above, I find that the January 11, 2026 NOR was required under s. 31 of the PAWS Act for the purpose of providing medical care and treatment to the dogs to relieve them of their distress.

CONCLUSION

63Having considered the totality of the evidence before me and all submissions made by both parties I find that the dogs were in distress on January 11, 2026 and it was necessary for the respondent to remove the dogs to alleviate their distress.

ORDER

64For the reasons set out above and pursuant to the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I decline to order the dogs to be returned to the appellant.