Application and Appeals under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Robert Schweitzer
Applicant and Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Order Made By: Kathleen Selkirk, Member, Co-Chair Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair, Co-Chair
For the Applicant: Robert Schweitzer, Applicant and Appellant Ursula Hart, Representative
For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel Timothy Jacobs, Regional Supervisor, AWS
Heard by Videoconference: March 18, 19, 20, 23, and April 16, 2026
INTRODUCTION
1Robert Schweitzer, the Appellant and Applicant (“Appellant,” for ease of reference in this decision), appeals to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Respondent (CAWI) issued on January 22, 2026 to keep his 9 birds following their removal (DTK) by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on January 15, 2026. He also appeals a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $3,268.52 served on him by CAWI on January 23, 2026 for their care. He further applies to the Board for the return of his birds.
2On January 15, 2026, the Respondent removed 10 birds from the property of the Appellant, and a Notice of Removal was issued pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c-13 (the PAWS Act). The following birds were removed:
Bird 1 African Grey
Bird 2 African Grey
Bird 3 African Grey
Bird 4 Cockatoo
Bird 5 Yellow-headed Amazon Parrot
Bird 6 Green-Cheek Conure
Bird 7 Lovebird
Bird 8 Canary
Bird 9 Canary
Bird 10 Canary
3Bird 5, the Yellow-headed Amazon, was euthanized on January 16, 2026, pursuant to a Certificate of a Veterinarian under s. 32(1)(b) of the PAWS Act.
4On January 28, 2026, the Appellant appealed the DTK (Board file 18268) as well as the SOA (Board file 18267) to the Board. That same day, the Appellant also filed an Application for Return (Application) of all living birds (Board file 18240).
5The Appellant also initially appealed two Orders issued on December 17, 2025 (Board file numbers 18239 and 18242); however, at a case conference which took place on February 3, 2026, these two appeals were withdrawn by the Appellant and the Appellant confirmed that he would be proceeding solely with the DTK and SOA appeals as well as the Application.
6The Appellant’s position with respect to the appeal of the DTK and the Application is that he has made changes to the cleanliness and enrichment of the birds’ environment, that the birds will be provided adequate nutrition and heating, and that the birds will not be in distress if returned to his care.
7The Appellant’s position with respect to the appeal of the SOA is that he does not have the financial means to pay the SOA.
8The Appellant was assisted throughout the duration of the hearing by his friend, Ursula Hart. Ms. Hart was originally presented as a support person, but on Day 2 of the hearing, she became the Representative for the Appellant (unlicensed representative covered by an exemption allowed by the Law Society of Ontario). She confirmed that she was not receiving any fee for her services. Ms. Hart also testified as a witness for the Appellant.
9The Respondent’s position with respect to the appeal of the DTK is that the Appellant has not provided evidence on the DTK appeal and that the Orders underlying the removal have not been challenged to this Board. To the extent that the Appellant has raised concerns about the Orders and removal, the Respondent says these are not properly brought before the Board.
10With respect to the appeal of the SOA, the Respondent argues that the SOA reflects reasonable costs incurred to provide the necessary care to the birds.
11The Respondent’s position on the Application is that the Appellant has not made the requisite changes to ensure the birds will not be placed in distress if returned to him and that the birds will be placed in distress if returned to him.
ISSUES
12For the DTK, did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that the birds may be placed in distress if they were returned to the Appellant?
13For the Application, have the conditions that caused the birds to be kept in or taken into the Respondent’s care ceased to exist?
14For the SOA dated January 23, 2026 in the amount of $3,268.52, should it be confirmed, revoked, or varied?
APPELLANT’S ISSUES
15The Appellant raised a number of issues in his Notice of Appeal as well as during the hearing. He has alleged the following:
i. AWS Inspector Brittany Lee was targeting him and did not have the necessary expertise to make decisions with respect to the birds;
ii. He has a very close relationship with animals stemming from traumatic events in his childhood;
iii. He was being treated unfairly because of his financial circumstances, and that the birds were kept in a purple room and his bed was in the kitchen;
iv. That the procedures followed by AWS and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) (who attended at the removal of his birds) on the day of the removal was chaotic and traumatic for the Appellant as well as his birds;
v. That the Green-Cheek Conure (Bird 6) was seriously injured during the removal process, which was chaotic;
vi. That the birds were subjected to harmful temperatures, causing distress, when AWS removed them and carried them a distance to their vehicles;
vii. That he has worked at the Kortwright Waterfowl Park for many years and received training in the care and medical treatment of birds;
viii. That he is making arrangements with a veterinarian to assist in the care of the birds should the need arise; and
ix. That he was attempting to find a veterinarian who could attend to his birds at his house to avoid transportation of the birds, to comply with an Order.
RESULT
16The appeal of the DTK is dismissed. The Application for Return is dismissed.
17The SOA is varied from $3,268.52 to $1,534.19. The Appellant shall pay this amount to the Minister of Finance within 15 business days from the date on which the Board gives notice of its decision.
ANALYSIS
Decision to Keep in Care Appeal
18For the reasons that follow, we decline to order the return of all birds to the Appellant because there are reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
19Section 31(6) of the PAWS Act provides that the Respondent may decide to keep an animal that was removed in its care for several reasons. At issue in this matter is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant pursuant to s. 31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act.
20Distress is defined at s. 1 of the 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.
21Ontario Regulation 444/19: Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements under the PAWS Act, addresses Basic Standards of Care for All Animals in section 3. Section 3(6) provides that:
Every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate,
(a) space to enable the animal to move naturally and to exercise;
(b) sanitary conditions;
(c) ventilation;
(d) light; and
(e) protection from the elements, including harmful temperatures.
22Inspector Lee and AWS Regional Supervisor Timothy Jacobs testified for the Respondent with respect to the DTK.
23Regional Supervisor Jacobs, as a Delegate of the CAWI, testified to the reasons he provided in the DTK, for his decision to keep the animals in the CAWI’s care, including:
i. The birds were found to be in distress; lacking appropriate sized housing (cages), were living in filthy conditions, and lacked appropriate stimulation and enrichment.
ii. The Appellant failed to comply with the lawfully issued compliance orders yet was given adequate time to meet the requirements.
iii. Keeping the birds in the Respondent’s care ensures access to water, food, sanitation, enrichment and monitoring, thereby relieving distress and preventing further harm.
24Regional Supervisor Jacobs issued the DTK on January 22, 2026, following two months of Inspector Lee working with the Appellant to attempt to achieve compliance with the Orders discussed below, before the birds’ removal.
25Inspector Lee first issued Orders of compliance under s. 30 of the PAWS Act on November 28, 2025 to address various standards of care issues including grooming needs, proper UVA/UVB lighting, sanitary cages, enrichment, perches, and appropriate space allowance for the birds.
26Inspector Lee, accompanied by her coworker, Senior Inspector Alyssa Dougherty, returned to the Appellant’s residence on December 16, 2025, for a compliance inspection. They found that the Appellant had made minimal attempts at compliance as follows:
i. The Appellant had purchased UVA/UVB lighting but expressed that he had no intention to install it;
ii. The room the birds was in was cold;
iii. The Appellant had not purchased larger cages and was refusing to let the birds out of their cages for exercise;
iv. All cages remained unsanitary with old feces caked to the bars;
v. None of the birds’ beaks or toenails were trimmed to an appropriate length and the Appellant expressed that he would only be trimming the Yellow-headed Amazon’s toenails.
27Inspector Lee advised the Appellant that he was in non-compliance with the Orders issued November 28, 2025. Inspector Lee also advised the Appellant that she would be issuing new Orders in addition to the original Orders. This was due to new medical concerns, namely excessive preening and thin body condition of one of the Amazon Greys (Bird 3), and the Appellant’s refusal to take any of the birds to a veterinarian.
28On December 18, 2025, AWS attempted to serve new Orders on the Appellant via Purolator. The Orders had compliance dates of December 24, 2025 and January 6, 2026. The Purolator delivery was unsuccessful, and the package was held for pickup at the nearest Purolator location. The package was not picked up by Appellant between December 18-24, 2025.
29On December 24, 2025, Inspector Lee attended the Appellant’s residence and personally served the Appellant with the Orders, and offered to explain the documents to him to which the Appellant walked away. Given the delay in service, AWS extended the compliance date of December 24, 2025 to January 6, 2026.
30On January 15, 2026, Inspector Lee attended the Appellant’s property with an Inspection Warrant (which allows entry) to do a compliance inspection. Inspector Lee testified that she sought the Warrant as she had found the Appellant difficult in dealings with her in the past and reticent to give her access to his residence.
31Prior to obtaining the warrant, on January 9, 2026, Inspector Lee attempted to contact the Appellant to request an update on compliance and set a date for a compliance inspection, to no avail.
32On January 10, 2026, Inspector Lee received a message through AWS Dispatch that the Appellant had called and threatened to harm himself and his animals should AWS continue contacting him.
33On January 12, 2026, Inspector Lee attempted to contact the Appellant by telephone and text message. Receiving no response from the Appellant, she attended the Appellant’s property and left a “While You Were Out” notice on the gate.
34On January 14, 2026, following repeated attempts to reach the Appellant, Inspector Lee submitted an application for a Distress Warrant to a Justice of the Peace. The Warrant was granted and permitted entry to the Appellant’s residence without his consent.
35On January 15, 2026, Inspector Lee executed the Distress Warrant, attending the Appellant’s residence with 3 other AWS Inspectors and 3 OPP officers to complete a compliance inspection.
36During the compliance inspection, Inspector Lee observed that all of the birds, except for the canaries (Birds 8-10), were in the same cages as at the time of the original Orders from November 28, 2025, and that all cages remained unsanitary. Inspector Lee also observed that the temperature in the bird room was cold, that there was a cat loose in the bird room, and that there were 15 dogs on the other side of the half-door at the entry to the bird room. She further observed that there were no changes to the lighting for the birds, and that minimal attempts at enrichment had been made.
37In his evidence at the hearing, the Appellant agreed that Birds 1-7 remained in the same cages and stated that he would not let them out of the cages for exercise as he could not do so safely with the cats and dogs in the residence. The Appellant further confirmed in his testimony that he had not cleaned the cages for Birds 1-7 prior to January 15, 2026. The Appellant further testified that he had not installed the lighting ordered by AWS as he did not think it necessary.
38The Appellant also testified that none of the birds had seen a veterinarian. The Appellant testified that he has a veterinarian named Dr. Rob Swackhammer for his livestock, and that he reached out to Dr. Swackhammer about care for the African Grey, Bird 3. Dr. Swackhammer advised the Appellant that he was not qualified to see the parrot but that he would contact another veterinarian to assist the Appellant with arranging for another veterinarian to provide vet care for the birds. The Appellant and Ms. Hart testified that he did not pursue other veterinary care.
39Dr. Younkyoung (Amari) Patel was the examining veterinarian following the birds’ removal. Dr. Patel was qualified as an expert witness in avian medicine at the hearing, and her veterinary reports were tendered as an exhibit.
40The veterinary reports indicate that Dr. Patel’s examination of the birds following their removal revealed a number of issues, including historical neglect and poor husbandry, overweight or underweight, pododermatitis in a number of birds, overgrown nails in a number of birds. Please see Appendix A for the full list of medical issues per bird.
41The Appellant did not provide contradictory evidence to the veterinary reports.
42The Board finds that, in all of the circumstances, the CAWI’s decision was supported by evidence, and it was necessary to keep the birds in care as there were reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if they were returned to the Appellant.
43The Board’s decision is based on two factors:
The minimal changes to the birds’ environment between when the first Orders were issued on November 28, 2025, and the compliance inspection on January 15, 2026, and in particular a lack of changes to cages sizes and opportunity for exercise.
The findings of the veterinary examinations conducted by Dr. Patel and the Appellant’s failure to secure veterinary care for the birds.
The Birds’ Environment
1. Cage Sizes
44Inspector Lee provided evidence that the cages were too small to allow the birds to fly. The Appellant’s evidence did not contradict this point, but countered that the cages were sold as cages for those types of birds and therefore the Appellant deemed them to be adequately sized.
45The Appellant and Ms. Hart testified that they did not think it necessary or appropriate to allow the birds out of the cages for exercise due to the potential for injury either by hitting a window or because of the other animals in the residence. The Appellant disputed the need for larger cages even though his testimony showed that he intends to keep the birds confined to their cages at all times.
46The Board finds this is in direct violation of s. 3(6)(a) of O. Reg. 444/19, which states:
Every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate,
(a) space to enable the animal to move naturally and to exercise.
47The Board finds that the cages may be appropriately sized, but only if the birds are allowed outside for exercise and to move naturally. We agree that it would be hazardous to the safety of the birds to allow them outside the cages if the other animals are permitted to roam freely. However, if the birds were to remain in the cages at all times, as the Appellant asserts, then we find the cages must be sized to enable the birds to move naturally and to exercise within the cages. They were not.
48The inability for the birds to move naturally or exercise if returned to the Appellant is the central reason for the dismissal of the appeal of the DTK
2. Cleanliness
49The Appellant testified that the cages had been cleaned following the removal of the birds and he provided photographs in support of his testimony. The Respondent advised that they accept the cages are now clean. The Board agrees.
50Despite the current state of the clean cages, the Board notes that the Appellant did not provide any indication of a future cleaning schedule. Further, the Appellant took issue with having to clean the cages in the winter due to the cold temperatures. The Appellant has not provided any evidence about the birds’ cages being cleaned regularly in the future or what alternate measures he will take if he cannot clean the cages during winter months.
51Section 3(6)(b) of O. Reg. 444/19 provides the following:
Every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate, …
(b) sanitary conditions.
52The Board has significant concerns about the ongoing cleanliness of the birds’ cages should the birds be returned to the Appellant. This is a second reason for the dismissal of the appeal of the DTK.
3. Lighting
53The Appellant testified that he bought UVA/UVB lights, as required by the November 28, 2025 Order, but stated that he was unclear on whether he had to install them due to conflicting advice he had received from Inspector Dougherty and a breeder named Mark Koenig from the store Exotic Wings & Things.
54The Appellant testified that Inspector Dougherty told him that he could add a nutrient to the birds’ diet in lieu of the additional lighting. Inspector Dougherty did not testify and this was not put to her; however, the Board accepts that the Appellant’s view of her stating this informed his belief that he may not need to install the UVA/UVB lighting.
55The Appellant also testified that he had spoken Mr. Koenig who had advised him that additional lighting was not necessary. While hearsay evidence, the Board accepts it for context in that it contributed to the Appellant’s belief regarding the UVA/UVB lighting.
56Regardless of the Appellant’s submissions, the November 28, 2026 Order required lighting to be installed. At the time of the hearing, the Appellant had not installed the lighting.
57The Board finds that, on balance, the Appellant had taken steps to secure proper lighting and could install it if the birds were to be returned. The Board would not have dismissed the DTK appeal on this ground alone as, had this been the sole cause of the birds distress, it could have been rectified by the Appellant.
4. Temperature
58The Appellant rationalized the cold temperature in the birds’ room, stating that the house is old and the furnace does not work. Instead, he relies on a wood stove for heat. He explained that he had purchased a new door to replace the front door adjacent to the birds’ room, but had not been able to install it.
59Both Inspector Lee and the Appellant confirmed there is no thermostat in the room and that the actual temperature had never been measured. However, Inspector Lee testified that it was cold enough that she needed to keep her winter parka on while doing the inspection and that she was still cold despite the area heater that the Appellant had installed in the birds’ room.
60Section 3(6)(e) of O. Reg. 444/19 states:
Every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate, …
(e) protection from the elements, including harmful temperatures.
61The Board is persuaded by the Respondent’s evidence, which it finds more compelling than the Appellant’s evidence in this regard, that the temperature in the birds’ room was harmful for the birds.
Veterinary Care
62Inspector Lee testified that on the December 16, 2025 inspection compliance visit, when medical concerns were raised about Bird 3, the Appellant told her he would not be taking any of the birds to a veterinarian.
63The Appellant provided no evidence in relation to finding veterinary care for the birds beyond a letter from Dr. Swackhammer that indicates he told the Appellant he was not able to see the birds as he does not practice avian medicine but that he would contact a veterinarian who might be able to assist. It does not appear this ever came to fruition.
64Inspector Lee testified that she had received a phone call on January 13, 2026, from a veterinarian named Dr. Beckstead who was calling her to request more information following a call that Dr. Beckstead had received from the Appellant. Dr. Beckstead advised Inspector Lee that no appointment had been made with her as the Appellant had advised he did not have funds to pay for an appointment.
65The AWS veterinary examinations of all birds showed an ongoing need for medical care, and the Appellant was unable to provide that care, in contravention of section 3(2) of O. Reg. 444/19. Returning the birds to the Appellant would have resulted in the birds not receiving the ongoing veterinary care they required thereby placing them in distress. The DTK was justified on this basis as well.
Conclusion on DTK Appeal
66The Board finds that the CAWI was justified in issuing the DTK, and that the birds would be returned to conditions that would cause them distress if they were returned to the Appellant.
67The Appellant was given a broad window of opportunity from November 28, 2025, when the first Order was issued, to January 15, 2026, when the birds were removed, to rectify the cage sizes of the birds or create an environment in which they could move naturally and exercise. The Appellant’s evidence indicates he did not see it as necessary to do so. The Appellant also did not clean the cages during that time or prior to the DTK being issued, nor did he see fit to have an ongoing cleaning routine, especially in winter. Finally, the Appellant did not secure veterinary care for the birds and maintained that it is difficult to locate veterinarians for birds.
68The DTK was reasonable and necessary. The appeal of the DTK is dismissed.
Application for Return
69We decline to order the return of all birds to the Appellant for the following reasons.
70Section 38(4) of the PAWS Act permits an owner to apply for the return of an animal that has been removed and is being kept in the care of the Respondent. The onus is on the Appellant to show that the conditions that led the animal to be kept in care have ceased to exist: Ishankova v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 36 (Ishanvoka).
71Under section 38(9)(2) of the PAWS Act when an owner applies for the return of an animal, the Board may order the return. Read in combination with s. 38(4), the Board can order the return if the Board is satisfied that the conditions that caused the animal to be kept in or taken into the Respondent’s care have ceased to exist.
72The onus rests with the Appellant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the risk factors giving rise to distress and being kept in care by the Respondent have been addressed, and that the birds will not be returned to an environment of distress.
73For the reasons that follow, we find the Appellant did not discharge his onus.
74The Appellant provided no evidence that the birds would be provided either with larger cages or given access to exercise outside of their cages. However, he did testify that he is not willing to remove the birds from their cages due to safety concerns for the birds in light of the cats and dogs in the home.
75The Appellant provided no evidence that he would clean the birds’ cages in an ongoing manner. He provided evidence that the cages were now clean, but he also testified that he feels it is inappropriate for him to have had to clean the cages in the winter. He did not provide evidence of how he would clean the birds’ cages in the winter months.
76Dr. Patel’s report makes it clear that ongoing veterinary care is needed for all the birds. The Appellant was first served with an Order in relation to veterinary care on December 24, 2025; however, as of the last date of the hearing, on April 16, 2026, the Appellant had not secured a veterinarian to provide that care.
77We find, on a balance of probabilities, that returning the birds to the Appellant would amount to placing them in distress. It would likely result in returning them to an environment that does not allow for natural movement or exercise, and where it is likely that unsanitary conditions will soon be an issue again. Further, it would likely result in returning them to a situation where they cannot access the ongoing medical care they require.
78For the above reasons, the Application for Return is dismissed.
Statement of Account Appeal
79Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act states that the CAWI may, from time to time, serve on the owner/custodian of an animal a statement of account respecting any costs incurred in relation to an animal if the costs were incurred in relation to any of the following:
An inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing it with necessaries;
An inspector has removed the animal under s. 31(1) or (2); or
The CAWI has kept the animal in its care or taken the animal into its care.
80Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act identifies the costs that may be included in a SOA, which include:
Costs incurred to relieve the animal’s distress;
Costs incurred in removing the animal or taking it into care;
Costs of providing care for an animal that has been removed;
Costs of providing care for an animal that the CAWI has kept or taken into care;
Costs of taking any prescribed action in relation to the animal.
81There is an initial burden of proof on the Respondent to prove that the SOA reflects the actual costs of necessaries and that these costs are reasonable. The burden of proof then shifts to the Appellant to show that the SOA should be revoked or varied (Windrift Adventures v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 at para. 40-53).
Reasonableness of the Veterinary Costs
82Inspector Lee, Regional Supervisor Jacobs, and Dr. Patel testified for the Respondent regarding the reasonableness of the veterinary costs.
83The birds were removed from the Appellant’s residence on January 15, 2026, because they were found to be in distress. The birds were immediately taken for veterinary examinations due to AWS’ protocol as avian viruses are highly contagious and pose a risk both to other birds in boarding facilities as well as humans.
84The veterinary examinations included chlamydia testing which Inspector Lee and Dr. Patel testified was necessary as it is a highly contagious zoonotic disease that can be easily transmitted to either other birds or people, and safe boarding precautions require ruling out this disease.
85In the case of the Yellowheaded Amazon (Bird 5), the veterinary examination was also due to immobility. In the case of one of the African Greys, (Bird 3), the veterinary examination was also due to excessive preening.
86The SOA was issued on January 23, 2026, and reflects charges for services provided to the birds between January 15 – 20, 2026 in the amount of $3,268.52. The Respondent provided 3 invoices reflecting the costs of veterinary examinations, sample collecting and testing, boarding, and euthanasia for one bird.
87In finding that these costs of care were actually incurred, we rely on the invoices filed into evidence by the Respondent, as well as on the evidence of Inspector Lee and Dr. Patel.
88The Appellant provided no evidence that any of the birds had ever been seen by a veterinarian, despite a clear need for this in relation to at least two of the birds, notably Bird 3 and Bird 5. Ultimately, the veterinary examination showed that all animals required veterinary care on January 15, 2026, and that they would require ongoing veterinary care to monitor their wellbeing.
89There are two exceptions to the reasonableness and accuracy of the costs of care incurred. The first is for the cost of the pain medication, Metacam, given to the Green-Cheek Conure (Bird 6). The second is for boarding costs due to overcounting the actual number of days of boarding and overcharging as a result. The SOA will be varied to subtract these amounts.
Costs for the Green-Cheek Conure, Bird 6
90We revoke the costs of the two injections of Metacam in relation to the Green-Cheek Conure, Bird 6, one at $40.07 and one at $0.07 for a total of $40.14, because these costs were not reasonable given our findings about its administration to this bird.
91We find based on the evidence of Dr. Patel, Mr. Schweitzer, and Ms. Hart, that it is likely the bird suffered injuries during the removal by AWS. We do not revoke the costs of the veterinary examination or sample collection as that would have been done in any event per AWS protocol.
92However, we find the Metacam was not given to the other birds. It was only necessary for this bird as a result of the injuries acquired during the chaos of the AWS removal due to the number of inspectors and OPP officers present and the lack of coordinated approach to removing the birds from their cages. The costs in relation to the Metacam for Bird 6 are revoked.
93The Appellant and Ms. Hart provided evidence that the environment was very chaotic during the removal. It was evident from Inspector Lee’s notes that during removal a number of police officers and AWS personnel were in the house. The turmoil in the house was not conceded but also not denied by the Respondent. There is no evidence that the bird was injured prior to removal. We find on a balance of probabilities that the stressful and chaotic situation during removal led to the injuries to the Green-Cheek Conure. On this basis we do not find that the Appellant should bear the cost of the pain medication for its injury.
Boarding Costs
94We vary the following costs in relation to boarding for the following reasons:
1Dogwood Animal Sanctuary Invoice, Item 1, total of $320.00 is varied to a total of $240.00. The invoice records boarding for 2 birds for 4 days (for a total of $40.00 per day x 8 days), but the itemization shows that it is for 2 birds for 3 days being January 16, 17, and 18, 2026 (for a total of $40.00 per day x 6 days).
95We revoke the following costs in relation to boarding for the following reasons:
2Dogwood Animal Sanctuary Invoice, Item 2, total of $80.00 is revoked. It cites boarding for the Amazon Parrot, Bird 5, for 2 days being January 16 and 17, 2026, but there is a Certificate of Euthanasia for the Amazon Parrot dated January 16, 2026. The Certificate of Euthanasia is unclear at what time the bird was euthanized on January 16, 2026, and there was no evidence provided in regards to that. The benefit of the doubt in this regard goes to the Appellant. The euthanasia could have taken place early in the day, in which case the Appellant should not have to pay the cost of the boarding fee for the entire day.
96We note that the Respondent did not provide any evidence to show that the boarding costs were in line with boarding costs for birds in Ontario. However, we also note that the Appellant did not provide any evidence challenging the boarding costs.
Varied Statement of Account
97In light of the above-noted revocations and variations, the SOA is varied from the original amount of $3,268.52 to a new amount of $3,068.38.
The Appellant’s Ability to Pay
98The Appellant testified that he has an inability to pay the SOA. He stated that he has limited income. The Appellant filed his annual Tax Assessment for 2025, which shows his total annual income as being $32,652.00.
99The Respondent did not challenge the Appellant’s ability to pay.
100The Appellant testified to significant heating costs, stating that he spends approximately $1,500 per month on wood which is his primary heat source. Without further evidence, we are not prepared to find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant spends approximately $18,000 on wood per year for heating. Further, all individuals must pay for some kind of heat and it is open to them to choose the most economical heat source possible. As such, we are not prepared to deduct the cost of wood from the Appellant’s annual income and are considering the most accurate statement of the Appellant’s annual income to be that reflected in the Tax Assessment.
101The Appellant has no human dependents. Yet, the Appellant has chosen to rent a farmhouse and become the caregiver for dozens of animals which had included the 10 birds that were removed. It is a choice that he has made to have that number of animals. Animals come with costs of care.
102The Appellant and Ms. Hart both testified to the supports that the Appellant has found in the community to help him care for the number of animals he has. Community support is important given the sizable task that the Appellant has chosen to take on; however, community support does not alter the fact that the responsibility for care ultimately lies with the Appellant.
103We take note of the Divisional Court’s comments at paragraph 56 of Ishankova in that “considering ability to pay is not necessarily inconsistent with promoting accountability” and that “[a]n owner may make greater efforts to pay the account if the amount is more manageable which may promote the objectives of accountability and ensuring animal welfare”.
104On balance, considering the need for accountability, the Appellant’s limited financial means, and the number of animals the Appellant has in his care, we vary the SOA to the amount of $1,534.19, which is half of the actual amount of the amended SOA based on the Appellant’s ability to pay.
105This is approximately 4.5% of the Appellant’s annual income which we acknowledge is substantial but we believe that it is reasonable in the circumstances. We find that it is within the Appellant’s limited means to pay this amount because in addition to his annual income, the Appellant also has access to livestock which he can choose to sell should need arise.
106Pursuant to s. 38(9)(3.1) of the PAWS Act, the SOA dated January 23, 2026 is varied by subtracting $200.14 from the current total of $3,268.52 to accurately reflect the costs of care. The new amount of the SOA is $3,068.38, and the Appellant is ordered to pay half of that amount, for a total of $1,534.19, to the Minister of Finance.
107The parties are reminded that s. 35(5) of the PAWS Act makes provision for the parties to enter into a written agreement to extend the time for payment or further reduce the amount that is to be paid, or both. However, such an agreement must be concluded before the prescribed period of time of 15 days (O.Reg. 447/19 Ministerial Prescriptions).
ORDER
108For the reasons set out above, we find that the DTK was necessary with respect to all birds to ensure they were not placed in distress upon return to the Appellant. The appeal of the DTK is dismissed.
109We find that the conditions that caused the birds to be kept in the Respondent’s care have not ceased to exist, and we find, on a balance of probabilities, that returning the birds to the Appellant would place them in distress. The Application for Return is therefore dismissed.
110We find the costs incurred by the Respondent were reasonable and necessary with the exception of $200.14 for the reasons set out above. We vary the amount of the SOA to $3,068.28. In light of the Appellant’s limited financial means, we order the Appellant to pay half of the total amount as varied, $1,534.19, which the Appellant shall pay to the Minister of Finance.
Released: June 15, 2026
Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
Kathleen Selkirk, Member
Appendix A: Medical Issues of Each Bird
African Grey (AWS 1): a. Increased respiratory effort likely due to stress; b. High fear, anxiety, stress rating likely due to removal from home; c. Quivering likely due to stress; d. Early Pododermatitis likely due to inappropriate perching areas and inactivity; e. Mild dehydration; and f. Historical neglect and poor husbandry.
African Grey (AWS 2): a. Visual deficits; b. Abnormal respiratory sounds; c. High fear, anxiety, stress rating; and d. Historical neglect and poor husbandry.
African Grey (AWS 3): a. Severe feather destructive behaviour; b. Underweight; c. High fear, anxiety, stress rating; d. Historical neglect and poor husbandry; and e. Early Pododermatitis.
Cockatoo (AWS 4): a. High fear, anxiety, stress rating; b. Historical neglect and poor husbandry; c. Overweight; d. Slight dehydration; e. Overgrown beak and nails; f. Partial missing digit; and g. Hyperkeratosis.
Yellow-headed Amazon Parrot (AWS 5): a. Severe pain and immobility; b. Severe bilateral orthopedic disease; c. Historical neglect and poor husbandry; d. Overweight; e. Poor feather quality and condition; f. Beak overgrowth; g. Nasal discharge; h. Pericloacal dermatitis; i. Chronic intestinal/peritoneal adhesions; j. Chronic bronchitis; k. Focal atherosclerosis; and l. Cloacitis and salpingitis.
Green-Cheek Conure, AWS 6: a. Mandibular avulsion/fracture; b. Feather barbering / poor feather quality; c. Grade I heart murmur; d. Historical neglect and poor husbandry; and e. Minor foot abrasion.
Lovebird, AWS 7: a. Historical neglect and poor husbandry; b. Mildly underweight; c. Moderate fear, anxiety, stress rating; and d. Overgrown nails.
Canary, AWS 8: a. Suspected coelomic mass; b. Underweight; c. High fear, stress, anxiety rating; d. Historical neglect and poor husbandry; e. Blunted choanal papillae; f. Early pododermatitis; and g. Overgrown nails.
Canary, AWS 9: a. High fear, anxiety, stress rating; b. Historical poor husbandry and neglect; c. Underweight; d. Nasal discharge; e. Overgrown beak and nails; and f. Thin plantar skin.
Canary, AWS 10: a. Historical neglect and poor husbandry; b. High fear, anxiety, stress rating; c. Coelomic distension; d. Overweight; e. Mild bilateral pododermatitis; f. Overgrown nails; and g. Mild urofecal crusting and staining.