Jaron Barnes v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 231

Tribunals ontario Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2026-05-08

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

Between:

Jaron Barnes Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Lisa Carr, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Jaron Barnes, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Adrien Iafrate, Counsel Brandon James, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services

Heard by videoconference: April 13, 2026

OVERVIEW

1The Appellant, Jaron Barnes, appeals a Statement of Account (SOA#2) in the amount of $7,232.13 issued to him by the Respondent, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, on March 12, 2026, for boarding costs from November 16, 2025 to March 11, 2026, in relation to a female Bulldog type dog named Bella.

2The Appellant was the owner of Bella when Bella was removed from him on October 16, 2025, by Animal Welfare Services (AWS), pursuant to s. 31(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act).

3On November 18, 2025, the Respondent issued a Decision to Keep Bella in the Respondent’s care, pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act. The Respondent also issued a Statement of Account (SOA#1) to the Appellant, in the amount of $5,048.80, pursuant to s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act, for costs incurred to board and provide veterinary and medical care to Bella.

4On March 12, 2026, the Respondent issued a second Statement of Account (SOA#2) to the Appellant, in the amount of $7,232.13, for boarding costs of Bella from November 16, 2025, to March 11, 2026. Only SOA#2 is the subject of this appeal.

ISSUE

5Should SOA#2, dated March 12, 2026, in the amount of $7,232.13, be revoked, confirmed or varied?

RESULT

6For the reasons that follow, I find that the costs set out in SOA#2 were incurred and reasonable. However, I exercise my discretion under s.38(9) of the PAWS Act to vary SOA#2 by 50%, reducing it from $7,232.13 to $3,616.06, based on the Appellant’s financial circumstances.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

7Pursuant 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 providing it with necessaries under s.33 of the PAWS Act.
2. An inspector has removed the animal under s.31(1) or (2) of the PAWS Act.
3. The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept the animal in care or taken the animal into care.

8Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act states that costs may include, among other things:

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

9In Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div Ct.) (Windrift), the Divisional Court established an analytical framework for statement of account appeals. The Respondent bears the 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.

The Respondent has met the initial evidentiary burden to show that the costs set out in SOA#2 were actually incurred and reasonable.

10SOA#2 totals $7,232.13 for the boarding costs of Bella at Outrun Animal Rehabilitation Center, from November 16, 2025, to March 11, 2026, as follows:

1. From November 16, 2025, to December 31, 2025, Bella was boarded at a daily rate of $45.00/day, plus HST, as reflected on invoice numbers 252, 273 and 285 from Outrun Animal Rehabilitation Center. Invoice 252 includes an additional charge of $290.16, plus HST, for veterinary call fee and a second booster shot of Bordetella vaccine. Invoice 285 includes an additional charge of $33.77, plus HST, for NexGard.
2. From January 1, 2026, to March 11, 2026, Bella was boarded at an increased daily rate of $55.00/day plus HST, as reflected on invoice numbers 005, 020, 032, 042, 050 from Outrun Animal Rehabilitation Center. Invoice 032 includes an additional charge of $65.00, plus HST, for “grooming, bath and blowout”. Invoice 050 includes an additional charge of $91.19, plus HST, for 450 mg Zylkene. These invoices total the amount reflected in SOA#2.

11AWS Inspector Nikki Trost testified on behalf of the Respondent. Inspector Trost states that Bella was boarded at Outrun Animal Rehabilitatin Center from November 16, 2025, to March 11, 2026, at a daily rate of $45.00/day which increased to $55.00/day on January 1, 2026. The boarding charges included food, water, medication, cleaning and all standard care required for Bella. Inspector Trost testified these are typical services and boarding rates within the range charged by boarding facilities for boarding animals across Ontario. The increased daily rate is normal annual inflation also consistent with other boarding facilities for boarding animals in Ontario.

12Inspector Trost also testified that Bella arrived at Outrun Animal Rehabilitation Center with a limp. As a result, she was monitored for this limp and there is an additional veterinary care fee. Bella also received the Bordetella vaccine shot, NexGard for flea and ticks and Zylkene to manage Bella’s stress and anxiety. Bella also received grooming, bathing and blowout. There were additional charges for the vaccines and grooming. Inspector Trost testified that vaccines and grooming are standard charges from boarding facilities boarding animals in Ontario.

13The Appellant disputed the necessity and reasonableness of the boarding charges but did not ask any questions in cross examination of Inspector Trost. Nor did the Appellant submit any evidence to dispute the necessity and reasonableness of these charges.

14On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Respondent has met the initial evidentiary burden of showing that SOA#2 reflects the actual costs incurred for providing care for an animal that has been removed and kept in care. I accept Inspector Trost’s evidence that the boarding, veterinary care, vaccine and grooming of Bella was necessary. I also accept Inspector Trost’s testimony that these expenses were incurred, and the cost was reasonable among other boarding facilities charged in Ontario. The Appellant did not cross examine Inspector Trost and offered no evidence to dispute this. Therefore, I find these expenses fall directly within s.35(2) of the PAWS Act for providing care of an animal kept in the Respondent’s care. The Respondent has established that the boarding costs were incurred and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Appellant has met the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that SOA#2 should be varied based on inability to pay.

15Having found the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden, the onus shifts to the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that SOA#2 should be revoked or varied.

16Under s.38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board has 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 (“Ishankova”) 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.

17The Appellant provided his bank statements for the months of November 2025, December 2025 and March 2026, together with documentation confirming that he received monthly social assistance payments from November 28, 2025 up to March 31, 2026, ranging from $689.21 to $693.00. He is not on disability assistance. The Appellant states this is his only bank account and only source of income.

18With respect to the Appellant’s expenses, he testified that he moved into his mother’s house in December 2025 to save money. He does not pay rent, utilities or any other expenses, other than his cell phone.

19With respect to employment, the Appellant states that he is actively seeking job opportunities as a cleaner. The Appellant also states that he was unable to look for work at the time Bella was removed, because of psychological conditions he was dealing with. He admits that he was dealing with the same psychological conditions when he caused harm to Bella. He did not provide any medical evidence about his psychological conditions but stated that cannabis has improved his conditions. He testified that he is feeling better now and well enough to work. He is actively seeking employment.

20The Appellant’s bank statements indicate there was only $0.72 available for withdrawal as of March 30, 2026. However, when the Appellant submitted the Notice of Appeal on March 18, 2026, he indicated that he has “about $2000 (two thousand) dollars right now and then I would like to set up monthly payments for the rest of the funds”. The Appellant states that he currently has $2,000 cash that he is able to pay towards SOA#2.

21The Appellant requests a payment plan for the amount exceeding $2,000.00, but the Board does not have the power to order a payment plan or time to pay.

22The Respondent argues that SOA#2 should be confirmed because these costs arose directly from the intentional act of the Appellant abusing Bella. The Respondent submits that this is very different from a situation where an owner cannot afford to care for a sick animal and the Appellant ought to be held accountable for his actions. Further, the Respondent argues that the Appellant is able to pay because he lives with his mother, has no expenses and is physically able to work. Lastly, the Respondent argues that the Appellant’s bank account shows that his social assistance payments are spent mostly on cannabis and fast food.

23I find that SOA#2 ought to be varied by 50%, to keep within the objectives of the PAWS Act, namely keeping the Appellant accountable by imposing financial obligations that are not impossible for him to pay. The Appellant admits that he was dealing with psychological conditions when he hurt Bella, although there is no documentation to support this. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that he is able to pay $2,000.00, even though there is no money in his bank account. I also accept the Appellant’s evidence that he receives approximately $690.00/month on social assistance and has next to no living expenses. Having regard to this evidence, I find that the Appellant ought to be held accountable for his actions causing harm to Bella. On a balance of probabilities, I find the Appellant has the ability to pay $3,616.65.

24In conclusion, the Board finds on a balance of probabilities that the costs in SOA#2 were actually incurred and reasonable in the circumstances. However, SOA#2 shall be varied by 50% considering the Appellant’s ability to pay and owner accountability.

ORDER

25For the reasons set out above, pursuant to s. 38(9)(3).1 of the PAWS Act, SOA#2 is varied by 50%. The Appellant is ordered to pay $3,616.06 to the Minister of Finance.