|
PAWS Dicta - Overview. Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
In Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court sets out some basics of the PAWS regime:[1] The Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (the “PAWS Act” or the “Act”) establishes a comprehensive scheme for protecting animals in Ontario. Animal Welfare Services Inspectors (“AWS Inspectors”) appointed under the Act may, by consent or warrant, enter and search a place if they have reasonable grounds to believe it may contain an animal in distress. An AWS Inspector may, at any time, provide necessaries to an animal to relieve it from distress. They may also remove animals and retain them. The Respondent, the Chief AWS Inspector, supervises AWS Inspectors and is responsible for regulatory enforcement under the Act: see Chief Animal Welfare Inspector v. Jackson, 2022 ONSC 872 (Div. Ct.). . Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
In Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers two JRs [one by a dog-owner and one by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI)] against animal care cost 'Statement of Account' decisions of the ACRB (Animal Care Review Board) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act (PAWS), here regarding a large-scale dog seizure.
In these quotes the court illustrates the PAWS administrative and ACRB appeal procedures:[2] In September of 2021 the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (“CAWI”) removed all the dogs from the Windrift properties and decided to keep them in her care. CAWI then issued a Statement of Account dated January 18, 2022 to Windrift seeking payment incurred for the monies spent by CAWI to care for Windrift’s 229 dogs. The account was in the amount of $1,114,720.27 and included charges incurred for transporting the dogs to boarding facilities, boarding charges from those facilities and veterinary costs incurred while they were in care.
[3] Under the provisions of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019 c. 13 (the “Act”), unless appealed, Windrift was obliged to pay the amount due within 10 days. Windrift appealed and the Board held twenty days of hearings during February to April of 2022. In the Decision, the Board varied the Statement of Account such that no amount was allowed for transportation or veterinary costs and the boarding costs were considerably reduced. The result of the Board’s variation is that Windrift is obligated to pay CAWI $506,760.00.[4] In their application for judicial review, Windrift asserts that the Board erred in allowing any amount for boarding costs and erred in failing to find that Windrift did not have the financial ability to pay the account in question. In support of their application Windrift sought to file fresh evidence.
[5] In her application for judicial review, the CAWI submits that the Board erred when it failed to allow the full amount claimed for boarding and erred when it disallowed the amounts charged for transportation and veterinary bills. She also argues that the Board erred in imposing an initial evidentiary burden on the CAWI to demonstrate that the costs incurred were reasonable.
....
Background
[8] Windrift operates its commercial dog sledding and horse-riding business at two Ontario properties—one is located in the Township of Oro-Medonte and the other is in the Township of Severn. In February of 2021, Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) conducted an inspection of Windrift’s properties to determine compliance with standards of care for animals who are kept for a commercial purpose.
[9] On February 25, 2021, AWS made several compliance orders under the Act related to the length of the dogs’ tethers and the size of the dog houses. These orders outlined certain measures required to be taken for the approximately 230 sled dogs on the Windrift properties.
[10] Windrift appealed the compliance orders to the Board. The Board confirmed the orders, with the exception of the order related to the size of the shelters, which it varied. In denying Windrift’s appeal the Board found that the dogs were in distress within the meaning of the Act.
[11] Both Windrift and the CAWI sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the Board’s determinations. Both requests were refused.
[12] On September 23, 2021, the AWS conducted an inspection of Windrift’s properties to see if they had complied with the compliance orders. When the inspectors determined that Windrift had done nothing to comply with the orders, they decided to remove the dogs from both properties for the purpose of providing them with necessaries to relieve their distress. Pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, AWS inspectors may, at any time, provide necessaries to an animal to relieve it from distress.
[13] The word “distress” is defined under the Act as:the state of being,
(a) in need of proper care, water, food or shelter,
(b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or
(c) abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect. [14] The word “necessaries” is not defined under the Act.
[15] On September 30, 2021 the CAWI decided to keep the dogs in her care for the purpose of continuing to provide them with necessaries in order to relieve their distress.
[16] Windrift appealed both the decision to remove the dogs and the decision to keep the dogs. After a lengthy hearing, the Board upheld both decisions. It ordered the return of several puppies that it found were not in distress and ordered that the remaining dogs should be returned once Windrift had lengthened the tethers and fixed the doghouses. To date Windrift has done neither and thus the dogs remain in the CAWI’s care.
[17] Windrift brought judicial review applications in relation to the Board’s decisions. This Court dismissed those applications.
[18] If an inspector has provided an animal with necessaries to relieve its distress, or if the CAWI has taken an animal into its care, s. 31(6) of the Act authorizes the CAWI to “from time to time”, serve on the owner a statement of account respecting the cost of necessaries.
[19] On January 18, 2022, the CAWI issued a Statement of Account to Windrift, in the amount of $1,114,720.27, for the cost of necessaries provided to the dogs while in her care during the period from September 2021 to January 2022. The “necessaries” included in the Statement of Account related to costs incurred for transporting the dogs to boarding facilities, boarding costs and veterinary services provided to the dogs while in care.
[20] Under s. 35 of the Act, an owner who is served with a statement of account is liable for the specified amount and must pay it within ten business days unless they appeal the statement of account to the Board. If the owner fails to pay or appeal within the timeline, the animal is forfeited to the Crown.
[21] On January 24, 2022, the Statement of Account was appealed to the Board. After holding a hearing, s. 38(9) of the Act empowers the Board to “confirm, revoke or vary a statement of account.”
[22] On August 18, 2022, after a 20-day hearing held during the period from February 7 to April 8, 2022, the Board partially confirmed the Statement of Account and varied the amount owing to $505,760.00. The Board disallowed all of the costs associated with transportation and veterinary services and substantially reduced the boarding costs.
|
