Administrative Law - OACRB

The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the transportation, boarding, and veterinary care of 16 horses removed from her property.

The Appellant brought preliminary motions to exclude late-filed evidence and for the adjudicator's recusal, both of which were dismissed.

On the merits, the Board found that the Respondent met its burden of proving the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, supported by expert veterinary evidence.

The Appellant failed to provide evidence challenging the costs, focusing instead on the underlying removal of the horses, which was not before the Board.

The Statement of Account was confirmed with a minor reduction.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services, a Statement of Account for $1,133.04, and applied for the dog's return.

The dog was removed after video evidence surfaced showing the appellant physically abusing and threatening to kill the dog on a livestream.

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

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account as reasonable and necessary costs of care.

The application for return was dismissed because the conditions causing the distress had not ceased to exist, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the dog returned to the appellant's family members in another province.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after his fourteen dogs were removed for non-compliance with an order.

The original SOA amount of $41,566.85 was amended to $38,007.35 during the hearing to exclude boarding costs after the date the respondent determined the animals could be returned.

The Board found that the costs reflected actual and necessary expenses for boarding and medications, and that the amounts were reasonable.

The amended SOA was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for costs incurred in caring for 22 dogs removed from her property due to non-compliance with a previous order.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its burden of proving the costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify varying or revoking the statement of account.

The Board confirmed the statement of account, minus a $330 reduction agreed to by the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay $28,907.69.

The applicant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account for veterinary care was issued.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the automatic forfeiture of the dog to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of the dog on the basis of mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog due to the forfeiture, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep their dog in care under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dog was removed based on a neighbour's allegations of physical abuse.

The Board found the neighbour's testimony lacked credibility and was motivated by an ongoing dispute.

Finding no physical evidence of abuse and accepting the appellants' evidence of proper care, the Board concluded the respondent lacked reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be in distress if returned.

The appeal was allowed and the dog was ordered returned to the appellants.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of two seized dogs.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the dogs had been statutorily forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, because the applicant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed timeframes.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her 13-year-old dog to undergo a full dental assessment under anesthesia, including necessary extractions and scaling.

The appellant argued the procedure was unnecessary and risky due to the dog's age, proposing instead to manage the condition with antibiotics and pain medication.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the dog was in distress due to severe untreated periodontal disease and that the appellant's proposed palliative care was not adequate or appropriate medical attention to relieve the distress.

The appellants appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding 11 dogs living in their vehicle.

The order required the appellants to provide adequate space, resting areas, appropriate food, isolate an aggressive dog, and seek veterinary care for two dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board revoked the requirements regarding space and resting areas due to insufficient evidence of distress.

The Board modified the remaining items, extending the compliance deadlines for providing appropriate food, isolating the aggressive dog, and obtaining veterinary care.

The appellants' request for the Minister to pay their veterinary costs was dismissed due to a lack of persuasive evidence.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to take specific actions to relieve distress for 15 horses on her property.

The inspector had issued the order after a brief visit where she observed only two horses and did not conduct a full inspection of the property or the animals' living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector lacked sufficient evidence to conclude the horses were in distress, noting the appellant's credible testimony, photographic evidence, and veterinary confirmation of the horses' well-being.

The Board revoked the order.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his two dogs, and applied for their return.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with a previous order to have them assessed by a veterinarian for poor body condition and an eye issue.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs remained in distress and required ongoing veterinary care, denying the application for return.

The Board varied the Statement of Account by removing the cost of two baths, confirming the remaining amount of $917.58 for veterinary and boarding costs.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog and the subsequent decision to keep the dog in care by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed due to a severe, untreated eye condition that a veterinarian advised required immediate care to alleviate distress.

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

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the dog in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned, given the appellant's failure to recognize the dog's medical needs and the unsanitary living conditions.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of his dog.

The Board found that while the dog was in distress and removal was justified, the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the veterinary costs and the full duration of the boarding costs.

The Statement of Account was varied, reducing veterinary costs to zero and boarding costs to $405.00.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that the dog had been statutorily forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, extinguishing the appellant's ownership rights.

The Board applied the Borowski test for mootness, found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the forfeited dog, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for $6,984.26 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the boarding and veterinary care of her two dogs, which were removed due to distress.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the respondent established the costs were actual, necessary to relieve the dogs' distress, and reasonable based on veterinary fee guides.

The Statement of Account was confirmed in full.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after his cat was removed due to non-compliance with an animal welfare order.

The adjudicator found that the costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animal's distress.

However, based on evidence of the appellant's acquired brain injury and extremely low income, the adjudicator varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 90 percent due to financial hardship.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her dog, which had been removed due to critical distress.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to return an animal once forfeited, rendering the appeal moot.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellants appealed an order issued under s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, which accompanied the return of their horse.

The appellants argued the horse was not in distress at the time of return because the boarding facility had been approved by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board confirmed the order, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the horse would be returned to a state of distress based on the appellants' history of poor operational and financial planning, as well as ongoing credibility concerns.

The Board held that returning an animal with an order is justified when there are reasonable grounds to believe distress would reappear upon return.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to permit evidence admitted in an appeal of a Notice of Removal to be treated as admitted in a subsequent Application for Return proceeding involving the same 33 dogs.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion pursuant to section 15.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding it appropriate given the proceedings involved the same animals and arose out of the same circumstances.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for $1,536.80 in costs incurred to remove a broken halter from his horse.

The appellant argued the intervention was unnecessary and the costs excessive, and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the horse was in distress and the costs for the emergency vendor services were reasonable.

The Board also found the appellant failed to establish a limited ability to pay, noting inconsistencies in his financial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.