The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board confirming a statement of account for over $1.5 million in care costs for more than 200 seized sled dogs.
The applicants argued the Board erred in its evidentiary findings, including relying on hearsay and failing to make adverse credibility findings.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as it was based on uncontroverted evidence from the respondent, and the applicants had failed to adduce any evidence or cross-examine the respondent's witness at the hearing.
