Ontario Animal Care Review Board

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 applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board order that dismissed her appeal of a Statement of Account under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The original appeal was dismissed because it was filed after the prescribed 10-day statutory deadline.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, and that the Board had no jurisdiction to accept a late appeal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed her application for the return of 31 cats due to mootness following their forfeiture.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness violations, failure to accommodate her disabilities, and errors regarding the service date of a Statement of Account.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that it had not violated procedural fairness, had provided opportunities for accommodation, and had correctly acted within its jurisdiction to determine the service date and statutory forfeiture timelines.

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 appellants appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $29,694.95 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the removal, boarding, and veterinary care of 71 animals, and applied for the return of the 66 surviving animals.

The Animal Care Review Board found that most of the costs were actual and reasonable, supported by expert veterinary evidence, but deducted $8,325.00 in projected boarding costs that had not yet been incurred when the SOA was issued.

The Board varied the SOA to $21,369.95.

The Board dismissed the application for the return of the animals, finding the appellants failed to prove that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist at their new property.

The appellant appealed the removal of several exotic animals from her home and shed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of enrichment, and improper housing.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal of two Macaques, a Fennec Fox, two Genets, and a Capuchin, finding they were in distress and their basic and species-specific standards of care were not met.

However, the Board ordered the return of one juvenile Macaque kept inside the home, finding it was adequately cared for and not in distress.

The applicant applied for the return of her seven bulldogs, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services after being found abandoned and living in unsanitary conditions.

The applicant, who was marginally housed and experiencing financial difficulties, argued she did not abandon the dogs and could now care for them.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist, as she provided insufficient evidence of stable housing or improved circumstances.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a prior motion decision that dismissed the appellant's appeal and applications under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Inspector argued the Board made an error of law in its statutory interpretation of section 38 and violated procedural fairness by not allowing submissions on that interpretation.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Inspector failed to demonstrate that the alleged error of law would have changed the outcome, and that the Inspector had been provided ample opportunity to make submissions during the original motion.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to keep her dog in care and a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The dog was seized after the appellant left a veterinary clinic without paying for emergency surgery due to financial constraints.

The Board found that it was not necessary to keep the dog in care to alleviate distress post-surgery, and there were no reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The Board ordered the dog returned to the appellant and varied the Statement of Account from $4,064.28 to $3,305.01 by deducting duplicate charges, unproven medication costs, and boarding fees incurred after the dog should have been returned.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his four dogs.

The dogs were removed after video evidence showed the appellant physically abusing them in an elevator and hallway.

Relying on expert veterinary and behavioural evidence, the Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in physical and psychological distress.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to relieve the dogs' distress and dismissed the appeal.

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 applicant sought the return of 110 cats removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the application as moot, arguing the cats had been forfeited to the Crown because the applicant failed to appeal or pay a $72,397.26 statement of account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the forfeiture extinguished the applicant's ownership rights, leaving the Board without jurisdiction to order the animals' return.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no live controversy or special circumstances justifying the expenditure of resources.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order issued by an Animal Welfare Service inspector requiring them to have their dog examined by a veterinarian.

Before the hearing, the dog was removed from the appellants' care and the order was revoked.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that since the order had been revoked, there was no longer an issue to decide and no remedy the Board could provide.

The applicant sought the return of her dogs and cat, which had been removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the animals had been forfeited to the Crown due to the applicant's failure to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals, as they had become the property of the Crown by operation of statute.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep in Care, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her eight dogs.

The animals were removed following an inspection that alleged unsanitary conditions, lack of water, and insufficient space.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were not in distress at the time of removal, noting evidence that they were provided with adequate water, space, and care.

The Board also found no reasonable grounds to keep the dogs in care, relying on expert veterinary testimony that any medical issues could have been addressed through orders rather than removal.

The Board ordered the dogs returned to the appellant and revoked the $13,934.44 Statement of Account.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding her 12 cats, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services.

Subsequently, a Statement of Account was issued for the costs of caring for the cats.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the cats being forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal of the Notice of Removal as moot.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to order the return of the cats once they became the property of the Crown.

The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her animals were removed due to non-compliance with an animal welfare order.

The Appellant failed to attend the hearing, having pre-emptively stated she would not attend due to a medical appointment, but did not file a proper adjournment request.

The Board proceeded in her absence.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs were reasonably incurred for the care of the removed animals and the Appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

Animal Welfare Services inspected the appellant's property and subsequently removed 46 cattle.

The appellant appealed the decision to remove the cattle.

However, the appellant had sold the cattle to a third party prior to their removal.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that because the appellant was no longer the owner of the cattle, the Board had no jurisdiction to order their return, rendering the appeal moot.

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

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after his 14 dogs were removed from his care.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and unnecessary, specifically challenging a boarding surcharge for dogs classified as not housebroken and alleging duplication of veterinary care.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary, but varied the SOA to remove the boarding surcharge, reducing the total amount payable from $7,142.84 to $7,086.34.

The applicant sought the return of 31 cats removed from her residence by Animal Welfare Services and the revocation of a compliance order.

The respondent issued a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs, which the applicant failed to appeal or pay within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the forfeiture of the cats to the Crown.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applications as moot.

The Board found that the cats were forfeited on August 19, 2025, and the compliance order was revoked by the respondent during the hearing.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board concluded the applications were moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear them.

The applications were dismissed.