Ontario Animal Care Review Board

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for $2,402.88, representing veterinary and boarding costs for a dog removed due to non-compliance with an order to provide veterinary care.

The appellant did not dispute the necessity of the care but sought to have the SOA revoked or reduced due to an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the costs incurred were actual and reasonable.

The Board further held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove financial hardship on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $13,550.80 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after 17 animals were removed from their care.

The Board found that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and necessary, supported by expert veterinary testimony and invoices.

The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify varying the account on that basis.

The Board varied the Statement of Account slightly to $13,451.36 to reflect a refund for a different testing method.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her 13-year-old dog to undergo a full dental assessment under anesthesia, including necessary extractions and scaling.

The appellant argued the procedure was unnecessary and risky due to the dog's age, proposing instead to manage the condition with antibiotics and pain medication.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the dog was in distress due to severe untreated periodontal disease and that the appellant's proposed palliative care was not adequate or appropriate medical attention to relieve the distress.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought motions to dismiss the appellant's multiple appeals and applications for abuse of process, citing his refusal to consolidate matters, voluminous non-compliant filings, and reliance on artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) that generated false citations and veterinary opinions.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the motion to dismiss, finding that while the appellant's conduct was significantly non-compliant, it did not warrant the exceptional remedy of dismissal.

However, the Board granted the alternative relief in part, striking the appellant's non-compliant submissions from the record for the immediate hearings to prevent prejudice to the respondent.

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 decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care after it was removed due to an eye injury.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the dog had been forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the prescribed time.

The Board found the appeal was moot as it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no remaining adversarial context and that hearing it would be an inefficient use of resources.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding 11 dogs living in their vehicle.

The order required the appellants to provide adequate space, resting areas, appropriate food, isolate an aggressive dog, and seek veterinary care for two dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board revoked the requirements regarding space and resting areas due to insufficient evidence of distress.

The Board modified the remaining items, extending the compliance deadlines for providing appropriate food, isolating the aggressive dog, and obtaining veterinary care.

The appellants' request for the Minister to pay their veterinary costs was dismissed due to a lack of persuasive evidence.

The appellant's dogs were removed by Animal Welfare Services while he was incarcerated.

He appealed a Statement of Account for boarding costs totaling $7,085.00, arguing financial hardship due to being under house arrest and unable to work.

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

However, accepting the appellant's evidence of limited financial means, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 50 percent to $3,542.55.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal concerning his dog.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the dog had been automatically forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay or appeal a statement of account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal once it has been statutorily forfeited, rendering the appeal moot.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to take specific actions to relieve distress for 15 horses on her property.

The inspector had issued the order after a brief visit where she observed only two horses and did not conduct a full inspection of the property or the animals' living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector lacked sufficient evidence to conclude the horses were in distress, noting the appellant's credible testimony, photographic evidence, and veterinary confirmation of the horses' well-being.

The Board revoked the order.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his two dogs, and applied for their return.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with a previous order to have them assessed by a veterinarian for poor body condition and an eye issue.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs remained in distress and required ongoing veterinary care, denying the application for return.

The Board varied the Statement of Account by removing the cost of two baths, confirming the remaining amount of $917.58 for veterinary and boarding costs.

The applicants sought the return of two dogs and six cats that were removed by Animal Welfare Services due to non-compliance with an order regarding parasitic infections and unsanitary living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the application, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing the animals to be in distress had ceased to exist.

The Board noted the applicants' history of non-compliance, reliance on non-medical treatments, and uncertain living arrangements following a recent move to Saskatchewan.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog and the subsequent decision to keep the dog in care by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed due to a severe, untreated eye condition that a veterinarian advised required immediate care to alleviate distress.

The Board found that the dog was in distress and that removal was necessary.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the dog in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned, given the appellant's failure to recognize the dog's medical needs and the unsanitary living conditions.

The Appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

Prior to the hearing, the dog was forfeited to the Crown because the Appellant failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account.

The Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Board found the appeal was moot but exercised its discretion to hear it, noting the outcome could affect future costs.

However, at the merits hearing, neither party presented any evidence.

The Appellant failed to attend, and the Respondent declined to call evidence or make submissions.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of evidence.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in care (DTK) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding 35 dogs removed from his property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were living in unsanitary, hazardous conditions and suffering from untreated medical issues, including chronic eye injuries and parasite infections.

Relying on expert veterinary evidence and the appellant's history of non-compliance with previous orders, the Board concluded it was necessary to keep the dogs in care to relieve their distress and that returning them would place them in further distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of his dog.

The Board found that while the dog was in distress and removal was justified, the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the veterinary costs and the full duration of the boarding costs.

The Statement of Account was varied, reducing veterinary costs to zero and boarding costs to $405.00.

The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $40,302.09 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of 33 dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the Respondent failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove the veterinary costs were actual and reasonable, as the supporting invoices were heavily redacted, lacked explanation, and appeared to contain duplicate charges.

The Board reduced the veterinary costs from $31,347.71 to zero.

The Board also reduced the boarding costs from $8,954.38 to $5,515.80 due to inconsistencies and calculation errors in one of the invoices.

The Appellant was ordered to pay the varied amount of $5,515.80.

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her appeal of a Notice of Removal and Application for Return.

The original appeal was dismissed because the appellant's dogs had been forfeited to the Crown following non-payment of a statement of account, leaving no legal remedy available.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to provide particulars of any error of law or fact, and noting that even if reconsideration were granted, the Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of animals after statutory forfeiture has occurred.

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of 33 Boston Terriers removed by Animal Welfare Services due to distress.

The respondent provided extensive veterinary evidence demonstrating the dogs were kept in unsanitary conditions with high ammonia levels and suffered from untreated medical issues, including severe ocular disease and wounds from fighting.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence to show the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that returning the dogs would place them in distress.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and applied for the return of her dog and its puppies.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeal and application on the basis that the animals had been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to appeal or pay two Statements of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals following their automatic forfeiture under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, rendering the matters moot.