Other Tribunals - OACRB

The Appellant appealed eight Notices of Decision to Keep an Animal in Care and seven Statements of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after various exotic and domestic animals were removed from the Appellant's zoo.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals had been kept in conditions causing distress, including inadequate housing, lack of hoof care, and insufficient human interaction for primates.

The Board concluded that returning the animals would place them back in distress due to the Appellant's failure to demonstrate a proactive plan for adequate care.

The Board also confirmed the Statements of Account totaling $105,059.35, finding the costs for boarding and veterinary care to be reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed a statement of account totaling $7,587.16 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to a cat in his daughter's care.

The cat was taken to an emergency clinic where the veterinarian recommended expensive treatment or euthanasia.

When the daughter could not afford treatment and was refused permission to take the cat home, the cat was treated and later boarded by AWS.

The Animal Care Review Board found that only the initial emergency assessment costs of $1,186.16 were reasonable and necessary, as the subsequent treatment and boarding were pursued despite the daughter's inability to pay and the initial option of humane euthanasia.

The statement of account was varied accordingly.

The appellants appealed the removal of 21 horses and subsequent decisions to keep the horses and their newborn colts in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, as well as three statements of account for the costs of their care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were properly removed due to distress caused by ongoing neglect, poor living conditions, and failure to comply with previous orders.

The Board determined the animals would likely be placed in distress if returned and ordered them kept in care.

The Board varied two statements of account to remove transportation costs, confirming the remainder, and ordered the appellants to pay $103,132.31 for the costs of care.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that reduced a Statement of Account from $1,114,720.27 to $505,760.00 for costs associated with the removal and care of dogs.

The Inspector argued that the Board violated procedural fairness, exceeded its jurisdiction, and made errors of law and fact regarding the evidentiary burden and the assessment of transportation, boarding, and veterinary costs.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness, no jurisdictional overreach, and no significant errors of fact or law that would warrant a different outcome.

The appellant appealed compliance orders, a notice of removal, and statements of account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding poultry, waterfowl, and rabbits on her farm.

The Board found the initial inspection lawful under the PAWS Act.

The Board confirmed the removal of the animals was justified due to distress caused by cold stress, unsanitary conditions, and lack of proper care.

Statement of Account #2 was confirmed, and Statement of Account #3 was slightly varied.

The compliance order for the remaining birds was confirmed with an extended compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Compliance Order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to have a veterinarian assess her cattle.

During a case conference, the parties reached a settlement to modify the order to apply to two specific cattle and extend the compliance deadline.

The Board issued a consent order modifying the Compliance Order under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, and the appellant agreed to withdraw her appeal.

The appellant filed a motion to amend a consent order regarding the proceeds of the sale of cattle removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant requested that the proceeds be held by a third party instead of the respondent.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to amend a consent order without consent.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that it is a creature of statute and its powers under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act do not include the ability to vary a consent order without the agreement of both parties.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary services and the euthanasia of her dog.

The dog was removed by an inspector after a veterinarian advised it was in critical distress.

The Board found the removal and subsequent euthanasia were justified based on the medical evidence of the dog's deteriorating state.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs reasonable and within the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a Compliance Order and a Notice of Removal issued by an animal welfare inspector regarding her 14-year-old dog.

The inspector had ordered the appellant to obtain urgent veterinary care for the dog's severe dental and neurological issues.

When the appellant failed to comply due to financial constraints, the dog was removed.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed both orders, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the animal was in distress and required immediate care.

The Board declined to return the animal, noting the appellant conceded she could not afford the necessary care and forfeited the dog.

The appellant and respondent both requested a reconsideration of a previous Board decision that upheld the removal of the appellant's dogs due to hoarding conditions but varied the Statement of Account (SOA) to 25% of boarding costs based on the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant sought the return of her dogs, while the respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider ability to pay and erred in finding veterinary costs unnecessary.

The Board dismissed both requests, finding no new evidence that would change the outcome for the appellant, and affirming its jurisdiction to vary an SOA based on ability to pay under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that varied a statement of account for animal care costs based on the owner's ability to pay and ordered a payment schedule.

The Board confirmed that it has the statutory jurisdiction to consider an owner's ability to pay when deciding whether to confirm, vary, or revoke a statement of account.

However, the Board found that it lacks jurisdiction to order a payment schedule, as the timeline for payment is prescribed by regulation.

The reconsideration was allowed in part, setting aside the payment schedule but confirming the varied amount.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued following the removal of three chickens from their property.

The appellants failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing and did not respond to communications from the Board or the respondent.

The Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for abandonment, to which the appellants did not respond.

The Board dismissed the appeal for abandonment.

The Board declined to confirm the Statement of Account without a hearing but noted the statutory obligation to pay.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the appellants' failure to attend did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct.

The appellant appealed a third statement of account totaling $34,687.56 for the boarding and veterinary care of animals removed from her property by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant argued the animals were forfeited when she did not appeal a keep-in-care decision and that she had no ability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the full amount of the account and that the appellant demonstrated a clear inability to pay.

The Board exercised its discretion to vary the account to $6,240, covering only the boarding charges up to the date the animals were deemed forfeited.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of veterinary care and boarding of 28 dogs removed from his residence due to distress.

The Board found the veterinary costs reasonable but determined the boarding costs of $35 per day were excessive, reducing them to $25 per day.

The total Statement of Account was varied from $31,639.68 to $22,819.68.

Recognizing the appellant's financial constraints and his strong bond with one specific dog, the Board ordered that he could pay an apportioned amount of $814.99 to have that single dog returned to him.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $6,612.11 for the veterinary care and boarding of her kitten, which was removed by Animal Welfare Services after suffering a broken leg.

The appellant did not dispute the necessity of the care but requested a payment plan due to severe financial hardship.

The respondent refused a payment plan and indicated the kitten would be forfeited if the account was not paid.

The Animal Care Review Board varied the Statement of Account to $0.00, finding that the appellant had no ability to pay and that forfeiture would be unjust given her circumstances and the lack of fault on her part.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care under s. 44(8) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent relied on four short video clips purportedly showing the appellant abusing the dog, but failed to call the author of the videos or any witnesses with first-hand knowledge.

The Board found the video evidence unreliable and concluded the respondent failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

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

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care and boarding provided to his dog, which was removed from an emergency clinic after being abandoned.

The appellant argued he could not afford the care and that euthanasia should have been considered.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the dog's distress, as the treating veterinarian did not recommend euthanasia.

However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $10,802.79 to $10,352.10, removing boarding costs incurred after the appeal period for the removal had expired, at which point the dog could have been put up for adoption.

The appellant appealed the removal of her three dogs by Animal Welfare Services and a Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs.

The dogs were removed due to unsanitary and hoarded living conditions that caused them distress.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal, finding the conditions remained unsuitable for the dogs' return.

However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $1,245.00 to $262.50, noting the appellant's precarious financial situation and the respondent's lack of evidence supporting the specific costs claimed.

The appellant appealed the removal of 11 dogs, one kitten, and one rabbit from her premises by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed under a warrant after a veterinarian assessed them as being in distress due to poor living conditions, malnutrition, and physical abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found the testimony of the inspectors and veterinarians credible and concluded the animals were in distress at the time of removal.

The Board confirmed the removal, upheld the statements of account, and declined to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a compliance order requiring two dogs to be seen by a veterinarian under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, arguing the appellant was an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant.

The Board found the appellant's notice of appeal and conduct exhibited multiple indicia of an OPCA litigant, including demanding payment in gold, using abnormal address formats, and asserting a dual identity.

The Board concluded the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed it.