OACRB 2026

The self-represented appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to file written closing submissions, an increase in the page limit, and an in-person hearing to present the submissions.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the extension of time to accommodate the appellant, but denied the requests for a page limit increase and an in-person hearing, noting that the parties had previously consented to the 5-page limit and written format, and the appellant provided no compelling reasons to alter those terms.

The Respondent requested a reconsideration of a decision that denied the Applicant's application for the return of her animals.

The Respondent sought to amend paragraphs in the decision regarding the status of a Statement of Account appeal, noting it had been dismissed after the hearing.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the new information did not affect the outcome of the decision and that the reconsideration process is not intended for administrative amendments.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to her removed cats.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable, included errors, and that she lacked the financial means to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the majority of the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary evidence.

The Board deducted a cold storage fee and unsupported tax charges, but declined to reduce the account based on ability to pay, noting the appellant's history of animal removals and lack of insight.

The Statement of Account was varied to $18,300.35.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep (DTK) 14 exotic animals in care and a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of the DTK and that the appellant lacked the necessary daily care plans, veterinary relationships, and adequate enclosures to ensure the animals would not be returned to distress.

The Board denied the appeal of the DTK and confirmed the revised SOA in the amount of $11,709.69 for the costs of boarding and veterinary care.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to seek veterinary care.

The appellant paid the first statement of account but failed to pay or appeal a second statement of account, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Board dismissed the appellant's application for the return of the dog and the appeal of the decision to keep the dog in care, finding it lacked jurisdiction due to the forfeiture.

However, the Board heard the appeal of the first statement of account, finding it was not moot, and confirmed the account in full, accepting expert evidence that the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care and applied for their return.

The animals were removed due to concerns about their diet, enclosures, daily routines, and social groupings.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate care and that the appellant's proposed changes were insufficient to meet the species-specific needs of the animals.

The appeal and application for return were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding and care of 29 domestic and exotic animals removed from her property.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found that most of the expenses, including boarding and veterinary care, were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

However, the Board varied the SOA from $34,926.76 to $31,435.99, deducting excessive transportation costs, the cost of constructing a new exhibit for foxes, and a duplicate medical charge.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep seven of his animals in care and applied for their return.

While the decision was pending, the appellant was released from custody and the animals were returned to him.

The Board found the appeal and application moot because the requested remedy had already been granted.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to decide the moot matters, finding no remaining adversarial context and that it would be an inefficient use of resources.

The appeal and application were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the removal of 29 domestic and exotic animals from her property by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the decision to keep the animals in care, and applied for their return.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal due to inadequate food and water, poor sanitary conditions, insufficient enclosure space, hazardous conditions, and untreated medical issues.

The Board accepted expert veterinary evidence that removal was necessary to alleviate the distress.

The Board further held that the respondent had reasonable grounds to keep the animals in care, as several required ongoing medical treatment and the appellant had not demonstrated that the environmental conditions causing the distress had been rectified.

The appeals and the application for return were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account but failed to pay or appeal it within the prescribed timelines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board found the appeal moot because it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of a forfeited animal.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the absence of an adversarial context and the need for judicial economy.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her appeals regarding the removal of her dog.

The appeals were originally dismissed without a hearing because they were filed past the 10-day statutory deadline and the appellant did not respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

On reconsideration, the appellant provided new information about her release from incarceration, but the Board found this information could have been provided previously.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after video footage showed the appellant repeatedly kicking, throwing, and dragging the dog in the common areas of his apartment building.

The appellant appealed the Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs and applied for the return of the dog.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress and removal was necessary.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs reasonable and necessary.

The Board dismissed the application for return, concluding the appellant failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing the distress had ceased to exist, as there was no expert evidence of sustained behavioural change.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to take various actions to relieve the distress of her animals, including dogs and a cat.

The inspector had found the animals living in unsanitary conditions with inadequate shelter, food, and water.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress and that the actions required by the order were necessary to relieve that distress.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her dog in care and a statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The dog had been removed after a veterinarian reported severe lacerations likely caused by the appellant's improper at-home bandaging.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the appellant exercised poor judgment in treating the dog at home and delaying veterinary care, there was insufficient evidence that the dog would be placed in distress if returned, as the injuries were accidental and the appellant ultimately sought care.

The Board ordered the dog returned and varied the statement of account from $10,008.57 to $9,567.87, deducting unnecessary boarding costs.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that confirmed a Statement of Account for $38,007.35 related to the care of his fourteen dogs after they were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The applicant argued that he had new evidence, including photographs of the dogs' condition upon return, and that he was disadvantaged by not having legal representation at the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate his case, that procedural fairness does not require legal representation, and that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $108,928.64 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of caring for 58 dogs removed from her residence due to unsanitary conditions and distress.

The Board found that the costs for transportation, boarding, and veterinary care were actually incurred and reasonable.

However, considering the appellant's severe financial hardship, mental health challenges, and inability to pay, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the SOA.

The Board reduced the amount to $10,000, balancing the need for owner accountability with the reality of the appellant's financial distress.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board order that dismissed his appeal of a Statement of Account for being filed past the 10-business day statutory deadline.

The appellant argued the Board erred in fact and reasoning by not accepting that his appeal was emailed on time but delayed by server errors.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, noting that the appellant failed to prove the email was received by the deadline and that statutory timelines cannot be waived.

The Board also rejected new evidence and a new ground of appeal regarding deemed service under the PAWS Act.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep 32 cats that were removed from her residence by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the cats had been forfeited to the Crown because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed timelines under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board found that the cats were forfeited by automatic operation of the statute, rendering the appeal moot as the Board could no longer order their return.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no remaining adversarial context or justification to expend resources.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary costs incurred by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after a sick puppy was removed from her care.

The appellant argued she was not the owner and could not afford the costs.

The Board found the appellant had sufficient custody and control of the puppy to be held responsible for the costs, and that the costs were reasonable and actually incurred.

However, considering the appellant's financial hardship as a new, unemployed mother, the Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 75 percent.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $20,938.65 in boarding and veterinary costs related to one adult cat and six kittens.

The adult cat was removed from the appellant's property, and the kittens were born in care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the medical care and boarding were necessary and the rates were generally reasonable, the appellant should not be responsible for all costs.

Specifically, the Board deducted costs for the adult cat's medical conditions likely caused by the respondent leaving the cat behind during an initial removal, and for the kittens' upper respiratory infections acquired after two months at the boarding facility.

The Statement of Account was varied to $15,293.95.