Brittany Wright v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 234

Tribunals ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2026-05-13

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

Between:

Brittany Wright

Appellant/Applicant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Lisa Carr, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Brittany Wright, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel Brandon James, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services

Heard by videoconference: April 20, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Brittany Wright (Appellant) is the owner of a medium sized American Bully Breed dog named Romeo and 2 domestic short hair cats named Stitch and Eden.

2The Appellant’s animals were removed from her home in February 2026 for failure to comply with orders issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS), under s.30 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (“PAWS Act”), requiring her to provide adequate and appropriate sanitary conditions free from hazardous objects.

3The animals were subsequently kept in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s (Respondent) care, pursuant to s.31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act.

4On March 3, 2026, the Respondent issue to the Appellant, a Statement of Account (SOA) requiring her to pay $1,289.00 for veterinary costs related to the examination, vaccines and medical boarding for the animals.

5On March 10, 2026, the Appellant filed the following with the Animal Care Review Board (Board):

1. An appeal of the SOA, dated March 3, 2026, in the amount of $1,289.02 (18388/ACRB); and

2. An Application for Return of Animal(s) on the basis that the conditions that caused her animals to be removed and kept in the Respondent’s care have ceased to exist. (18389/ACRB).

ISSUE

6The issues to be decided are:

Application for Return (18389/ACRB)

1. Have the conditions that caused Romeo, Stitch and Eden to be taken into or kept in the Respondent’s care ceased to exist such that Romeo, Stitch and Eden should be returned to the Appellant?

Statement of Account Appeal (18388/ACRB)

2. Should the SOA, dated March 3, 2026, in the amount of $1,289.02, be revoked, confirmed or varied?

RESULT

7For the reasons that follow, I find that the conditions that caused Romeo, Stitch and Eden to be taken into and kept in the Respondent’s care continue to exist. The Application for Return is dismissed.

8The costs set out in the SOA, dated March 3, 2026, shall be varied to $1,174.09, by deducting the cost of three vaccines.

ISSUE 1 – HAVE THE CONDITIONS THAT CAUSED ROMEO, STITCH AND EDEN TO BE TAKEN INTO AND KEPT IN CARE CEASED TO EXIST SUCH THAT THEY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE APPELLANT?

9Under section 38(4) of the PAWS Act, an owner or custodian of an animal that has been kept in or taken into the CAWI’s care, may apply to the Board by notice in writing to have the animal returned if the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in or taken into care have ceased to exist.

10The Board must therefore determine on the evidence before it, whether the conditions that caused Romeo, Stitch and Eden to be kept in or taken into the Respondent’s care have ceased to exist. The burden rests with the Appellant.

What conditions existed that caused Romeo, Stitch and Eden to be removed and kept in care?

11Regional Supervisor Brandon James testified on behalf of the Respondent. He testified that AWS became involved in this matter, on December 10, 2025, after receiving a complaint about unsanitary conditions in the Appellant’s home. Brandon James testified with respect to the inspections of the Appellant’s home leading up to his signing the DTK on February 27, 2026, as follows:

1. On December 11, 2025, AWS inspectors attended the Appellant’s home and found a large amount of garbage on the floor. Stitch and Eden were running loose through the home. AWS inspectors issued an Order under s.30 of the PAWS Act, requiring the Appellant to provide adequate sanitary conditions by removing garbage, debris, and all hazardous items accessible to Stitch and Eden, by January 12, 2026.

2. On January 12, 2026, AWS inspectors re-attended the Appellant’s home and found that the Appellant purchased a new dog, Romeo, since their last attendance. AWS inspectors noted the Appellant’s progress in improving the sanitary conditions. However, there were still open garbage bags, old food, food containers and household debris on the ground accessible to Romeo, Stitch and Eden.

3. AWS inspectors re-attended the Appellant’s home on January 29, 2026, to find boxes and garbage bags piled up in corners. AWS issued a new Order to the Appellant, under s.30 of the PAWS Act that included the new dog, Romeo. The Appellant was ordered to provide adequate sanitary conditions free from hazardous items in all areas accessible by Romeo, Stitch and Eden, by February 3, 2026, at 12:00 p.m.

4. AWS inspectors re-attended the Appellant’s home again on February 4, 2026, and noted significant progress in the improvement of sanitary conditions and removal of hazards accessible to the animals. AWS extended the time to comply to February 18, 2026, at 12:00 p.m.

5. On February 18, 2026, AWS extended the time to comply to February 25, 2026, given the Appellant’s request for an extension due to a back injury.

6. AWS re-attended the Appellant’s home again on February 25, 2026, and found that the sanitary conditions had regressed. There were food containers with rotting food and open garbage bags accessible to the animals throughout the home. There were also small pieces of broken toys, plastic pieces, food containers, plastic bottle caps and other small objects throughout. Romeo was found in a wire crate and appeared to be covered in his own feces and urine, and no water was observed.

7. Based on the unsanitary conditions and hazardous objects accessible to Romeo. Stitch and Eden, AWS inspectors concluded the animals were in distress due to potential ingestion of small plastic items around the house. Romeo, Stitch and Eden were removed from the Appellant’s home and AWS issued to the Appellant, a Notice of Removal (NOR) (incorrectly dated March 25, 2026), for failing to comply with the Order dated January 29, 2026.

12Brandon James referred to photographs taken by AWS inspectors on the date of removal. These pictures showed Romeo sitting in his own excrement and the garbage and hazardous items throughout the home. Brandon James testified that all the garbage and small plastic objects, if swallowed, by Romeo, Eden and/or Stitch, would cause severe medical trauma.

13Brandon James testified that he signed the DTK to keep Romeo, Stitch and Eden in the Respondent’s care on February 27, 2026, (incorrectly dated February 24, 2026). Brandon James did not receive any request from the Appellant to re-inspect the Appellant’s home for compliance with the Order dated January 29, 2026. As of the date of this hearing, Brandon James has never received any request from the Appellant to reinspect the Appellant’s home. Therefore, he believed there were reasonable grounds to believe that Romeo, Stitch and Eden may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.

Have the unsanitary conditions and hazardous items ceased to exist?

14On a balance of probabilities, I find that the conditions that caused Romeo, Stitch and Eden to be removed and kept in care continue to exist.

15The Appellant admits that she has not contacted AWS to re-inspect her home for compliance because she still has a “small portion” that needs to be done to comply. She states that she is waiting for a friend to help her take bags and boxes to the dumpster. She feels that she has done 90% of the work and plans to take ibuprofen so she can finish the last 10% of the work either today after the hearing or tomorrow.

16The Appellant admits that she has not requested re-inspection because she is not ready. The Appellant also admits that she has not fully complied with the Order dated January 29, 2026, as of the time of this hearing.

17I acknowledge the Appellant’s genuine desire to bring her home into compliance for the safety of her animals, however I must make my decision based on the evidence of the conditions existing at the time of the Appellant’s testimony. The Appellant did not produce any evidence, such as photographs. The Appellant has been unable to bring her home up to adequate sanitary conditions since December 11, 2025, and continues to be unable to do so today.

18In reaching this conclusion, I rely on the Appellant’s admission that her home is not yet in compliance at the time of this hearing. This is consistent with the evidence of Brandon James that he has never received a request to re-inspect the Appellant’s home for compliance with the Order dated January 29, 2026.

19For all these reasons, I dismiss the Application for Return.

ISSUE 2: SHOULD THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT BE CONFIRMED, VARIED OR REVOKED?

20Pursuant 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:

a) An inspector has removed the animal under s.31(1) or (2) of the PAWS Act.

b) The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept the animal in care or taken the animal into care.

21Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act states that costs may include, among other things:

a) Costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress.

b) Costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care.

c) Costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed.

d) Costs of providing care for an animal that has been kept or taken into care.

22In 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 Statement of Account should be revoked or varied.

Has the Respondent met the initial evidentiary burden that the costs set out in the SOA were actually incurred and reasonable?

23The SOA totals $1,289.02 for three invoices from Dr. Peiman Hojjati Veterinary Medicine Professional Corporation, all of which are dated February 25, 2026, as follows:

a) Invoice no. 405704 is for the examination, vaccination and one day of medical boarding for Stitch (incorrectly referred to as Sparkles), in the amount of $413.17.

b) Invoice no. 405703 is for the examination, vaccination and one day of medical boarding for Eden, in the amount of $306.46.

c) invoice no. 405702 is for the examination, vaccination and one day of medical boarding for Romeo in the amount of $569.39.

24Regional Supervisor Brandon James testified that Romeo, Stitch and Eden were transported to Dr. Peiman Hojjati’s clinic for assessment on the day of their removal. He testified it was necessary to have the animals assessed by a veterinarian to ensure they were healthy and did not have any medical conditions that could be spread to other animals. Romeo, Stitch and Eden were found to be healthy and given vaccines and supplements, before being transported to a boarding facility.

25Regional Supervisor James also testified to the reasonableness of the charges. He referred to the 2026 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) Suggested Fee Guide to show that all the examination, vaccination and medical boarding charges were comparable to or less than those set out in the Fee Guide.

26The Appellant did not take issue with the veterinary invoices for Eden and Stitch because she admitted that Eden and Stitch were not vaccinated. However, the Appellant took issue with the invoice for Romeo because she had him vaccinated prior to his removal. The Appellant produced Romeo’s vaccination record for distemper, adenovirus type 2, parainfluenza, parvovirus, Bordetella, rabies (1 year). The Appellant states she showed this vaccination record to one of the AWS inspectors.

27In response, Regional Supervisor James testified that Romeo requires more than one vaccination and still benefitted from the second vaccine. However, Regional Supervisor James did state that he might have reconsidered vaccinating Romeo had he known that Romeo was previously vaccinated. Regional Supervisor James was not qualified as an expert on vaccines.

28On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Respondent met its initial evidentiary burden that the SOA reflects the actual costs incurred and that those costs were reasonable, except for the cost of three vaccines for Romeo ($38.31 x 3) which total $114.93 (inclusive of HST). I do not find the three vaccines were necessary to relieve Romeo’s distress. I accept the Appellant’s testimony that she showed Romeo’s vaccination records to one of the AWS inspectors. I also found that Regional Supervisor James was forthright when he testified that he might have reconsidered these vaccinations for Romeo if he was aware of Romeo’s prior vaccinations. This suggests that the vaccines may not have been necessary.

29With respect to the balance of the SOA, being $1,174.09, I find that the costs were incurred and reasonable. The Appellant did not challenge the reasonableness of the balance. I find these costs are comparable to or less than the fees set out in the Fee Guide. I find these expenses fall directly within s.35(2) of the PAWS Act, being costs of removing the animals and taking them into care. The Respondent has established that the costs of $1,174.09 were incurred and reasonable in the circumstances.

Has the Appellant met the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the balance of the SOA should be revoked or varied based on her ability to pay?

30Having found that the Respondent met its initial evidentiary burden that the costs of $1,174.09 were incurred and reasonable, the onus shifts to the Appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the balance of the SOA should be revoked or varied.

31Under 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 promoting owner accountability.

32The Appellant testified that she is a single mother of three children under the age of 12. She recounted her medical conditions, including ones that limit her physical abilities. She described the medication she takes. She did not produce any other evidence in support of this testimony. On cross examination, the Appellant felt she could care for and exercise Romeo, being a medium sized dog.

33The Appellant further testified that she has not worked for the last four years. Her last job was at a fast-food restaurant, but she was unable to physically stand at a cash register due to her physical limitations. She receives social assistance and wants to apply for Ontario Disability Support Program payments. The Appellant did not produce any documents to support her financial situation.

34On cross examination, the Appellant stated that she will be able to pay the costs of animal care by going to pet food banks and assistance from friends when needed. Her parents would also lend money if Romeo, Stitch and Eden require expensive care.

35On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Appellant did not meet the onus to satisfy me that she does not have the ability to pay the balance of the SOA. The Appellant did not produce any documents to support her financial situation. I was not persuaded by the Appellant’s oral testimony about her financial circumstances because she testified that she is able to pay for the care or her animals if returned. In January 2026, the Appellant purchased Romeo at a cost of $300.00, adding a third expense to the other two animals she already had. On February 20, 2026, the Appellant paid $270.96 to vaccinate Romeo. The Appellant has made her intentions clear that she intends to contact AWS to re-inspect her home for the return of Romeo, Stitch and Eden. The balance of the SOA relates to typical veterinarian costs that animal owners are required to pay. Given the Appellant’s oral evidence that she can afford to care for the animals if returned and the lack of supporting documentation, I find that the Appellant has not met the burden to prove that the balance of the SOA should be revoked or varied.

ORDER

36The Application for Return is dismissed. The conditions that caused Romeo, Stitch and Eden to be removed and kept in the Respondent’s care have not ceased to exist and Romeo, Stitch and Eden should not be returned to the Appellant.

37The SOA is varied and the Appellant is ordered to pay $1,174.09 to the Minister of Finance.