Ontario Animal Care Review Board

The appellant appealed a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for costs incurred in caring for 22 dogs removed from her property due to non-compliance with a previous order.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its burden of proving the costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify varying or revoking the statement of account.

The Board confirmed the statement of account, minus a $330 reduction agreed to by the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay $28,907.69.

The applicant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account for veterinary care was issued.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the automatic forfeiture of the dog to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of the dog on the basis of mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog due to the forfeiture, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep their dog in care under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dog was removed based on a neighbour's allegations of physical abuse.

The Board found the neighbour's testimony lacked credibility and was motivated by an ongoing dispute.

Finding no physical evidence of abuse and accepting the appellants' evidence of proper care, the Board concluded the respondent lacked reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be in distress if returned.

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

The applicant sought the return of her dog, which had been removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to obtain veterinary care.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the subsequent Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being forfeited to the Crown.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of an animal that had been forfeited and become the property of the Crown.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in Care issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding his dog, who was removed due to severe chronic ear infections.

The Board found that the dog required specialized surgical treatment that the appellant had failed to provide over several years.

The Board concluded that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve his distress and that returning the dog to the appellant would place him back in distress, given the appellant's inability to provide or afford the necessary ongoing veterinary care.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account for veterinary care, which she neither appealed nor paid within the prescribed statutory timelines.

Consequently, the dog was forfeited to the Crown by operation of statute.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis of mootness.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board found the appeal moot because it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no remaining adversarial context and citing judicial economy.

The appeal was dismissed.

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) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary care provided to her two injured dogs after they were removed due to distress.

The adjudicator found that the respondent met its burden to prove the costs were actual and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary testimony, except for a portion of the digital x-ray charges which lacked sufficient documentation.

The SOA was varied from $2,228.04 to $2,079.49.

Animal Welfare Services removed three horses from the appellant's care and issued a Decision to Keep (DTK) and a Statement of Account (SOA).

The appellant filed a notice of appeal but failed to include the required grounds or remedy for the SOA, later confirming she did not intend to appeal the costs.

Because the SOA was neither properly appealed nor paid within the statutory timeframe, the horses were automatically forfeited to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the SOA appeal invalid and the DTK appeal moot due to the statutory forfeiture, which eliminated the Board's jurisdiction to order the horses' return.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary costs incurred after four dogs were removed from her care due to parvovirus.

The appellant argued she lacked the financial ability to pay the $30,714.84 SOA.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the costs were generally reasonable and necessary, there were some discrepancies in the billing.

Considering the appellant's limited financial means, the Board varied the SOA, reducing it by 50 percent minus a previously paid fee, ordering the appellant to pay $13,729.58.

The appellant appealed a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of veterinary care provided to his puppy, which was removed due to critical distress from heat stroke.

The appellant argued he could not afford the treatment and did not consent to it.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable and necessary, and the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship.

The statement of account for $509.63 was confirmed.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that confirmed a $1,431,180 Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellants argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, violated procedural fairness, and erred in law by failing to reference the purposes of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that it had jurisdiction to confirm the statement of account, the parties were afforded procedural fairness, and the Board is not required to address every argument raised.

The appellants failed to meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal regarding the removal of his dog.

The dog had been removed pursuant to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, and a statement of account was issued for veterinary costs.

Because the appellant neither paid nor appealed the statement of account within the statutory timelines, the dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog since the appellant was no longer the legal owner.

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's sixteen horses were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellant filed an appeal of a Statement of Account and applications for the revocation of an order and the return of the animals.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal and applications.

The Board granted the motion, dismissing the Statement of Account appeal because the appellant failed to articulate grounds of appeal within the prescribed period and an amendment would cause prejudice and delay.

The application for revocation was dismissed as moot, and the application for return of animals was dismissed because it failed to address how the conditions causing distress had ceased and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying removal decision.

The appellants appealed a final Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $1,431,180.00 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of 229 dogs removed from their properties.

The Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to prove the costs were incurred and reasonable, as the $20.00 per dog per day rate was significantly less than the actual boarding costs.

The appellants failed to prove that the dogs were not provided with adequate care, that the amounts were inappropriate, or that the SOA should be varied due to financial hardship.

The Board confirmed the final SOA in full.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of two seized dogs.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the dogs had been statutorily forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, because the applicant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed timeframes.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed two statements of account totaling over $7,800 for veterinary costs incurred after her dog was removed by an animal welfare inspector for emergency surgery.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the respondent established the actual costs incurred, it failed to meet its initial evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable, as it provided no evidence regarding typical or industry standard fees for the services.

Consequently, the Board varied both statements of account to $0.00.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding, veterinary care, and animal care for cats and dogs removed from her care.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the costs in the first Statement of Account were reasonable, except for costs incurred after the animals were forfeited to the Crown and an unexplained locksmith invoice, reducing the amount by $2,550.98.

The Board confirmed the second Statement of Account in full, ordering the appellant to pay a total of $128,776.44.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $11,245.09 issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her animals were removed due to distress.

The animals had been left alone in unsanitary conditions.

The Board found the costs were justified, reasonable, and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of an inability to pay.

The Statement of Account was confirmed.