Administrative Law - OACRB

The appellants appealed the removal of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business properties by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed following non-compliance with previous orders regarding tether lengths and dog house conditions.

The Board found that while some puppies were not in distress and must be returned immediately, the majority of the dogs were in distress due to inadequate tether lengths, lack of insulation, and poor state of repair of their shelters.

The Board ordered the return of the remaining dogs subject to the appellants achieving compliance with specific standards of care, including three-metre tethers and insulated dog houses.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.

The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.

The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.

However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding business, brought a motion seeking the return of over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector or a stay of the removal orders.

They argued the search warrants leading to the removal were based on misleading Information to Obtain (ITOs).

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice, which issued the warrants.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay of the removal orders, arguing that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the Animal Care Review Board filed a factum in a related judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's factum did not demonstrate aggressive partisanship and that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to the individual decision-maker, not the entire tribunal.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to inspect the dogs, arguing they needed to take their own measurements and expressing concern over the dogs' welfare after three dogs died in the respondent's care.

The Animal Care Review Board found it had jurisdiction to order an inspection under Rule 9.3(d) because the respondent intended to rely on measurements taken during the removal.

However, the Board declined to order the inspection, finding it would not be proportionate or efficient to inspect over 200 dogs for measurements, and noting that the appellants' welfare concerns would be addressed by a separate disclosure order.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to remove over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion for further disclosure, including documentation of the removal, the subsequent care of the dogs, and the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) used for the search warrants.

The respondent refused, arguing the information was irrelevant.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested disclosure was relevant to whether the removal was lawful and necessary for a full understanding of the issues.

The appellants, owners of a dog sledding business, appealed the removal of over 200 dogs by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a preliminary motion seeking the interim return of the dogs pending the full hearing, arguing that a multiplicity of proceedings between the parties offended natural justice.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the other proceedings did not address the same issues and were mostly initiated by the appellants themselves.

Furthermore, under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board only has the authority to order the return of animals after a full hearing on the merits, unless both parties consent, which did not occur here.

The appellant appealed the removal of nine horses from her property by Animal Welfare Services and the associated statements of account.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in distress due to lack of proper care, food, and shelter, and that their removal was warranted under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board declined to order the return of the remaining horses because the appellant had not fully complied with a prior compliance order and the horses were still receiving treatment.

The Board varied the first statement of account to $13,284.35 and confirmed the second statement of account at $11,587.21.

The appellant appealed the removal of her cat by Animal Welfare Services.

The cat had an advanced sarcoma on its foot, which was necrotic and discharging.

The appellant had refused amputation or euthanasia, opting for palliative care with leftover medication.

The Board found that the cat was in distress at the time of removal and that the inspector had the authority to remove it based on a veterinarian's certificate.

Although the cat's leg was subsequently amputated, the Board found it was still in distress due to the need for ongoing post-operative care.

The Board declined to return the cat to the appellant, finding she was unable to adequately provide the necessary care.

The appellants appealed the removal of 17 pigs from their property by Animal Welfare Services and the associated statements of account for boarding and care.

The animals were removed after inspectors found them to be in distress due to inadequate access to clean water, poor housing conditions, and untreated medical issues, and following the appellants' failure to comply with previous compliance orders.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal was warranted under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, as the animals were in distress and the appellants had not complied with outstanding orders.

The Board confirmed the statements of account, finding the costs reasonable, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a second Statement of Account issued for the continued care of her 33 dogs, which had been previously removed and forfeited.

The Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The appellant's submissions focused on re-litigating the previous removal order, seeking the return of her dogs, and complaining about an earlier Criminal Code charge.

The Board dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding it frivolous, outside the Board's jurisdiction, and failing to meet the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered her horse not be returned to her.

She argued the Board committed jurisdictional and procedural fairness errors, made errors of fact and law, and heard false evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness in denying adjournments, correctly placing the burden of proof on the appellant for a section 38(1) appeal, and noting that no written application under section 38(3) was before the Board.

The allegations of false evidence were also dismissed as they pertained to closing submissions, not witness testimony.

The appellants appealed compliance orders issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the care of approximately 240 sled dogs and 14 horses at their commercial dog sledding and horse-riding facilities.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to the dogs' tether lengths and shelter insulation, finding they did not meet the minimum standards under the Regulation, but varied the order regarding dog house dimensions.

The Board revoked the orders relating to the horses, finding they had adequate natural shelter and no statutory requirement for bedding existed.

The appellants' argument that the inspection warrants violated section 8 of the Charter was dismissed, as the inspectors did not search any dwellings and were authorized to inspect the commercial operation.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after suffering a life-threatening stab wound and the owners failed to provide instructions for emergency veterinary care.

The appellant appealed the resulting Statement of Account for the veterinary services, seeking to pay the amount in instalments.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the account was for necessaries to relieve the animal's distress.

The Board held that while the Chief Inspector may agree to payment in instalments under section 35(5) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board lacks statutory authority to alter the payment provisions.

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the account in full within 10 business days.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of caring for two horses removed from his property.

The appellant argued he should not be liable for costs after October 19, 2020, claiming one horse was healthy enough to be returned then.

The Animal Care Review Board found the appellant's claims speculative and confirmed the Statement of Account, ordering the appellant to pay $5,132.26 for the costs of care.

The appellant appealed a statement of account for boarding costs related to the removal of his three dogs by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed from the appellant's mother's residence after a compliance order was not met.

The appellant, who relies on Ontario Works, was not notified of the removal until six days later, by which time significant boarding costs had accrued.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the failure to provide timely notice was procedurally unfair and that the accrued costs were beyond the appellant's financial ability to pay.

The Board varied the statements of account to $0 and ordered the immediate return of the dogs to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the removal of her seven cats by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account for their care.

The cats were removed after the appellant failed to comply with orders to address severe flea infestations and unsanitary living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the cats were in distress at the time of removal and that the inspector's entry into the home was lawful based on the consent of the appellant's partner.

The Board declined to return the cats, finding the appellant lacked the financial means and ability to provide adequate care.

However, the Board varied the $1,594.41 statement of account to $0, noting that while the charges were reasonable, the appellant relied solely on ODSP and had no ability to pay.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that confirmed orders to seize his animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The appellant argued the Board violated procedural fairness due to late disclosure and made errors of fact regarding a lack of a warrant.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the original member reasonably addressed the late disclosure by granting an adjournment and that the appellant failed to establish any error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The appellant appealed the removal of her dog by an animal welfare inspector.

The inspector had issued a compliance order requiring the appellant to have the dog examined by a veterinarian due to concerns about the dog's poor physical condition and the appellant's admission that she was not feeding or watering the dog.

When the appellant failed to comply with the order, the dog was removed.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector had reasonable grounds to issue the compliance order and that the removal was lawful.

The Board declined to return the dog to the appellant, finding no evidence that she was willing or able to provide the necessary lifelong veterinary care.

The appellants appealed an order issued by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, requiring them to have their 16-year-old dog examined by a veterinarian.

The inspector observed the dog to be overweight, struggling to stand, and having sores and respiratory issues.

The Board accepted the expert veterinary evidence that the dog was likely suffering from osteoarthritis and was in distress.

The Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress and that a veterinary examination was necessary, but modified the compliance dates to allow additional time.