Self-represented (not participating)

The appellant appealed a decision of the Animal Care Review Board that had found a compliance order invalid for three dogs and required the appellant to reimburse veterinary costs.

The Superior Court held that under s. 18(4) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act the appeal is a new hearing conducted de novo, not a review of the Board’s decision.

The court declined to determine whether the Board had jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter because the constitutional issue was not properly raised and the respondent did not participate.

After hearing unopposed evidence from animal welfare officers and a veterinarian, the court found there were reasonable grounds to believe the dogs were in distress and that the compliance order was justified.

The Board’s order requiring reimbursement of veterinary expenses was rescinded.

A costs endorsement in a family proceeding addressing the applicant’s bill of costs following earlier orders.

The applicant sought recovery of legal fees, disbursements, and HST calculated using Legal Aid tariff rates and including time billed by multiple office staff.

The court endorsed the reasoning that staff time such as secretaries or non‑articling students generally constitutes law office overhead and should not be separately recoverable in costs awards.

While accepting the Legal Aid tariff rates and allowing compensation for a law clerk and paralegal, the court declined to deduct earlier costs awarded on a different basis and adjusted the claimed amounts accordingly.

The court fixed the total costs payable to the applicant after deductions.