Administrative Law - OACRB

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that dismissed their appeals and applications for the return of their dogs, cats, and horse.

The appellants argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of law or fact, and that new evidence was available.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it did not act outside its jurisdiction, the minor factual errors made did not affect the outcome, and the alleged new evidence was available prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for $68,284.85 relating to the boarding, veterinary care, and animal care of 21 horses removed due to distress.

The appellant disputed the boarding costs, arguing that indoor boarding was unnecessary and the rates were exorbitant compared to outdoor boarding.

The Animal Care Review Board found the choice of boarding facility rational given the need for immediate capacity and safety.

The Board concluded that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to remove his dog from his care.

The dog was removed after inspectors received complaints and audio recordings of the appellant yelling at, threatening, and physically striking the dog or its crate.

An expert veterinarian opined that the appellant's loud, angry outbursts and physical actions caused the dog psychological and physical distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress due to both physical and psychological abuse, and upheld the removal order.

The appellant's 33 Boston Terriers were removed by an inspector for non-compliance with a previous order.

The appellant filed an appeal and an Application for Return with the Animal Care Review Board.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion seeking the return of the dogs.

The Board denied the motion, finding it redundant because the Application for Return was the appropriate avenue to address the matter.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding her cat.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the cat had been forfeited to the Crown because the appellant failed to appeal or pay a Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Board granted the motion, finding that once forfeiture occurred, the appellant ceased to have ownership rights, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animal.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 10 cats removed from her home due to unsanitary and hoarding conditions.

The appellant argued the costs were too high and some medical tests were unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and in some cases below market value, relying on the respondent's expert veterinary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed at $14,966.81.

The Appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of her two Great Danes due to distress and unsanitary conditions, and confirmed a Statement of Account.

The Appellant argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of fact, heard false evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Board found the Appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence or meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after her dog was removed due to allegations of physical and psychological abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, supported by eyewitness accounts of the appellant striking the dog and expert veterinary testimony regarding the psychological impacts of caregiver abuse.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $38,902.44 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for transportation, boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to 21 horses removed from the appellant's property.

The appellant argued the costs were unnecessary and excessive.

The Animal Care Review Board found the transportation, boarding, and veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Board varied the SOA to $38,499.69, reflecting a reduction in farrier services consented to by the respondent.

The appellants appealed decisions by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep five dogs, one cat, and one horse in care after they were removed from a moving truck in high heat without adequate food, water, or ventilation.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the appellants lacked the appropriate accommodations, boarding arrangements, and veterinary expertise to properly care for them.

The Board dismissed the appeals and declined to order the return of the animals, concluding they would be placed in distress if returned.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $4,629.40 issued by Animal Welfare Services for emergency veterinary care provided to his dog.

The dog required an emergency C-section, which the appellant could not afford, prompting the removal of the dog and the subsequent surgery.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the costs incurred were reasonable and supported by expert testimony.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $7,491.28 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to her dog.

The dog was removed from the appellant's care after she failed to comply with an order to seek veterinary treatment for the dog's broken leg, which ultimately required amputation.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding that the costs were reasonable, reflected actual necessaries provided to relieve the dog's distress, and were incurred due to the appellant's non-compliance and inability to provide proper care.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a statement of account and application for the return of 86 cats.

The Board found the statement of account appeal was moot because the statement had been revoked, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the cats because they had already been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay previous statements of account.

The motion was granted and the proceedings were dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that reduced a Statement of Account for the boarding of 36 seized dogs.

The appellant argued the Board violated procedural fairness by refusing to issue a summons and made errors of law and fact regarding a purported duty of care, the sale of the dogs, and the reasonableness of boarding costs.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and concluding that the appellant was attempting to reargue the appeal rather than demonstrating any errors of fact or law.

The appellants appealed a compliance order issued by an Animal Welfare Services inspector requiring them to take their dog, Hera, for a follow-up veterinary assessment.

The inspector issued the order because it was unclear whether the appellants had complied with previous veterinary recommendations regarding the dog's skin issues.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress at the time the order was issued, as proper care includes appropriate medical care and the inspector could not confirm if the recommended follow-up assessment had occurred.

The appellant appealed the removal of 15 equids, the subsequent Keep in Care decisions, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate shelter, water, and food, and confirmed the removal and Keep in Care decisions.

The Board also granted a confidentiality order to protect the appellant's personal health information.

The Statement of Account was confirmed but reduced on consent to remove trailer layover costs.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $166,937.62 for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after 34 dogs were removed from her care by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant argued that the veterinary care was unnecessary, the boarding facilities were sub-standard, and the respondent unreasonably prevented the sale of the dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the boarding costs were reasonable and that the respondent did not prevent the sale of the dogs.

However, the Board reduced the veterinary costs by $2,853.05 for duplicative vaccinations and $4,095.90 for an un-itemized mobile clinic fee.

The Statement of Account was varied to $159,988.67.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a compliance order, dismissed an appeal of a notice of removal for 40 cats, and confirmed a statement of account.

The appellant argued the Board made errors of fact, heard false evidence from an inspector, and violated procedural fairness due to technical issues during the hearing.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or fact, no false evidence, and no violation of procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed two statements of account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after their two dogs were removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board confirmed the first statement of account in full, finding the veterinary costs reasonable given the dogs' medical conditions.

The Board varied the second statement of account by deducting the cost of a veterinary consultation and treatment projection letter obtained for legal proceedings, but confirmed the remaining boarding and medical costs as fair and reasonable.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that varied a Statement of Account (SOA) for animal boarding and veterinary costs.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not dividing the SOA between his business and his co-appellant's business, as they were responsible for separate dogs.

The Board denied the request, finding that the issue of separate ownership or custodianship was never raised during the original hearing, and a reconsideration is not an avenue to advance new arguments.

The Board also noted it lacks statutory authority to order a precise allocation of an SOA between individuals.