Other Tribunals - OACRB

The applicant sought the return of 37 dogs removed from his care.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for mootness, arguing the dogs had been forfeited to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 because the applicant failed to pay two statements of account within the prescribed time.

The Board granted the motion, finding that statutory forfeiture ended the applicant's ownership rights and the Board's jurisdiction to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $91,068.22 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 40 sheep and 5 lambs removed from her care.

The appellant did not dispute the reasonableness of the costs but argued for a reduction or revocation based on financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable and supported by invoices.

The Board declined to reduce or revoke the SOA, noting the appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence of financial hardship.

The SOA was confirmed in full.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary, transportation, and boarding costs related to the removal of 22 dogs from her residence.

The Board found the boarding costs reasonable and confirmed them.

However, the Board varied the veterinary and transportation costs, finding it unreasonable to charge the appellant for a medical condition that developed after the dogs were removed from her care.

The appellant's claim of financial hardship was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Statement of Account was varied from $38,779.58 to $37,621.90.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs related to two dogs removed from his care.

The Board found that the costs were actual, necessary, and reasonable.

However, based on the appellant's uncontested evidence of limited financial means, the Board varied the SOA, reducing the amount owed by 50 percent to $1,245.20.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Decision to Keep in Care regarding her dog, and filed an Application for Return.

However, she failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals and application.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.

The Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog following forfeiture, rendering the appeals and application moot.

The appellant appealed the removal of 10 exotic animals from her property by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the decision to retain them and two statements of account for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of appropriate food and water, and inadequate veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, denied the application for the return of the animals, and confirmed the statements of account totalling $12,241.39, finding the costs reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her diabetic cat was removed due to lack of medical treatment.

The appellant argued she could not afford the treatment at the time but her financial situation had since improved.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and fell below standard veterinary fee guidelines.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the amount of $6,230.33, finding no basis to reduce it given the appellant's improved financial circumstances.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a decision to keep 72 cats and 1 dog in its care.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot because 65 cats and 1 dog had been forfeited to the Crown after the appellant failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account within the statutory timeframes.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the forfeited animals.

The appeal was allowed to proceed only with respect to 7 kittens born in care, which were not subject to the Statement of Account and had not been forfeited.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services after his dog was removed for failing to comply with an order to seek veterinary care for an eye condition.

The Board found that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve its distress and ensure it received required surgery.

Although the dog had already been forfeited to the Crown due to a subsequent unappealed Statement of Account, the Board reviewed the initial Statement of Account.

The Board reduced the veterinary emergency fees to align with the provincial fee guide and further reduced the total amount payable to $160.00 based on the appellant's limited ability to pay.

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 respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a Statement of Account relating to the removal of 47 exotic birds.

The appellant had previously missed the statutory deadline to appeal the removal itself and sought to challenge the lawfulness of the removal and raise Charter arguments through the Statement of Account appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that challenging the underlying removal in a Statement of Account appeal constitutes an impermissible collateral attack.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care following its removal and subsequent surgery.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account for the dog's care within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal after forfeiture and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

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) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $10,435.34, covering the costs of care, boarding, and veterinary services for four horses removed from her property.

The Board first determined that the SOA was validly issued under s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act, finding that liability attaches to the person who was the owner or custodian at the time the costs were incurred, even if the animals were later forfeited or euthanized.

The Board confirmed the SOA in full, preferring the evidence of the respondent's veterinarians regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the care provided.

The appellant's request for costs was dismissed.

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 the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services following a complaint of physical abuse.

The Board reviewed video evidence showing the appellant physically abusing the dog and accepted expert veterinary evidence that the dog was in physical and psychological distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary to alleviate distress.

The Board further held that the conditions causing the removal had not ceased to exist, as returning the dog would cause additional psychological distress, and dismissed the appeal for the dog's return.

The appellant, who operates a cattery, appealed seven orders issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The orders were issued upon the return of 39 cats and one dog that had previously been removed due to distress.

The Board found that the animals remained in distress upon their return due to ongoing medical needs and unsanitary living conditions.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to general welfare and specific medical care, but revoked an order requiring the appellant to maintain daily written records for all felines, finding it overly onerous for a sole caretaker.

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 appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $2,344.60 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care provided to a dog removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The dog was seized after the owner attempted to remove it from a veterinary hospital against medical advice while it was in critical distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the respondent proved the majority of the veterinary costs were reasonable and actual.

The Board varied the SOA to $2,162.88, deducting one unsupported ward fee.

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.