Ontario Animal Care Review Board

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for $1,536.80 in costs incurred to remove a broken halter from his horse.

The appellant argued the intervention was unnecessary and the costs excessive, and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the horse was in distress and the costs for the emergency vendor services were reasonable.

The Board also found the appellant failed to establish a limited ability to pay, noting inconsistencies in his financial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account was issued.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the required time, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of the removal and decision to keep the animal, arguing the matters were moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it has no jurisdiction to order the return of an animal once forfeited to the Crown, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeals.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that dismissed their appeals and applications for the return of their dogs, cats, and horse.

The appellants argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of law or fact, and that new evidence was available.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it did not act outside its jurisdiction, the minor factual errors made did not affect the outcome, and the alleged new evidence was available prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for $68,284.85 relating to the boarding, veterinary care, and animal care of 21 horses removed due to distress.

The appellant disputed the boarding costs, arguing that indoor boarding was unnecessary and the rates were exorbitant compared to outdoor boarding.

The Animal Care Review Board found the choice of boarding facility rational given the need for immediate capacity and safety.

The Board concluded that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to remove his dog from his care.

The dog was removed after inspectors received complaints and audio recordings of the appellant yelling at, threatening, and physically striking the dog or its crate.

An expert veterinarian opined that the appellant's loud, angry outbursts and physical actions caused the dog psychological and physical distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress due to both physical and psychological abuse, and upheld the removal order.

The appellant's 33 Boston Terriers were removed by an inspector for non-compliance with a previous order.

The appellant filed an appeal and an Application for Return with the Animal Care Review Board.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion seeking the return of the dogs.

The Board denied the motion, finding it redundant because the Application for Return was the appropriate avenue to address the matter.

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 appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 10 cats removed from her home due to unsanitary and hoarding conditions.

The appellant argued the costs were too high and some medical tests were unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and in some cases below market value, relying on the respondent's expert veterinary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed at $14,966.81.

The Appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of her two Great Danes due to distress and unsanitary conditions, and confirmed a Statement of Account.

The Appellant argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of fact, heard false evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Board found the Appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence or meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after her dog was removed due to allegations of physical and psychological abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, supported by eyewitness accounts of the appellant striking the dog and expert veterinary testimony regarding the psychological impacts of caregiver abuse.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for their removed animals.

The appellants argued the charges were excessive, the care was sub-optimal, and they lacked the ability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account in the amount of $17,086.36, finding that the care provided was necessary, the boarding rates and veterinary fees were reasonable and consistent with industry guidelines, and the appellants failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove an inability to pay.

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 Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant did not dispute the costs but sought a reduction based on financial hardship.

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

However, considering the appellant's limited financial means as a 19-year-old mother of two, the Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owing by 50 percent to balance accountability with the appellant's ability to pay.

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 appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $38,902.44 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for transportation, boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to 21 horses removed from the appellant's property.

The appellant argued the costs were unnecessary and excessive.

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

However, the Board varied the SOA to $38,499.69, reflecting a reduction in farrier services consented to by the respondent.

The Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to prohibit the Appellants from calling the Respondent's counsel as a witness in an appeal regarding a Statement of Account for animal care costs.

The Appellants sought to call opposing counsel to testify about alleged stalking and misleading the Board.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear complaints against lawyers, the Appellants failed to provide proper notice or a witness statement, and counsel cannot act as both a witness and representative for their client.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $200,525.96 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 83 cats and kittens removed from their property.

The Board found that the boarding and veterinary charges were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary the account to $20,052.59, representing ten percent of the original amount, due to the appellants' dire financial circumstances, medical issues, and risk of losing their property.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, a notice of decision to keep animals, a statement of account, and applied for the return of animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The compliance order and statement of account appeals were dismissed on preliminary motions with the appellant's consent due to late filing and revocation, respectively.

The appellant withdrew the remaining appeals after two and a half days of testimony.

All files were closed.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep (DTK) and applied for the return of 21 thoroughbred horses seized by Animal Welfare Services.

The horses were removed after a veterinarian advised they were in distress due to inadequate nutrition, lack of medical and farrier care, and poor environmental conditions including hazardous fencing and insufficient shelter.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the DTK was necessary to relieve the horses' distress and that returning them would place them back in distress.

The Board dismissed the appeal and the application, concluding the appellant failed to prove the conditions causing the distress had ceased to exist.