|
PAWS - Procedural Illustrations. Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
In Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court illustrates some procedures for a pet seizure, here of cats:[6] The Animal Welfare steps began in January 2023. In response to a complaint about cats living in unsanitary conditions, an inspector went to the applicant’s apartment. The applicant denied him entry. In early February 2023, the inspector went back with the assistance of the police, which is provided for under the Act. The applicant was not there. They conducted a critical distress entry and observed more than thirty cats in unsanitary conditions without access to food or water. The cats were not removed at that time. Photographs were taken and food and water were put out.
[7] The next day, an Animal Welfare inspector went back to the apartment but did not enter. The inspector was unable to make contact with the applicant, and therefore posted a notice on the door. The inspector became aware that the applicant was in police custody and it was not known when she would be released.
[8] The next day, Animal Welfare inspectors went back to the apartment. The notice was still on the door. The main inspector contacted a Regional Supervisor who approved access based on the animals being in critical distress.
[9] The landlord gave access to the apartment. The inspectors found forty one cats living in unsanitary conditions, and one deceased cat, in an apartment that was about 10 feet by 10 feet. There was a strong odour of ammonia, a build-up of feces on the floor, no litter boxes, and no food or clean water.
[10] The inspector believed that there was “no time to spare” because the cats were alone in the unit and the applicant was in custody. Photographs were taken showing the above and the inspector left notice of the removal of the cats. The cats were taken to an animal shelter. Animal Welfare later issued a decision to keep the cats in care and issued a statement of account for the costs of care. . Geddes v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
In Geddes v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismisses a JR against the Animal Care Review Board (ACRB) under the PAWS animal welfare regime. The ACRB decisions confirmed orders that "certain animals— which had been removed from the Applicant’s property by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) — should not be returned to the Applicant. The Board also confirmed seven Statements of Account (“SOA”), payable by the Applicant in the total amount of $105,059.35.".
The court illustrates PAWS procedures, here in a inspection and seizure case involving the issuance of statements of account and which was subsequently taken to the ACRB:[3] The Applicant and his family operate the Bervie Zoological Park (“Zoo”), located in Kincardine, Ontario. The Zoo houses both domestic and exotic animals. AWS inspected the Zoo on August 26, 2021, October 1, 2021, December 20, 2021, March 15, 2022, April 20, 2022, and April 29, 2022. The latter two AWS inspections were conducted pursuant to inspection warrants issued by the Ontario Court of Justice in accordance with ss. 24(4) and 24(5) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O, 2019 c.13 (“PAWS Act”).
[4] On April 29, 2022, Dr. Graham Crawshaw, a veterinarian, issued a Certificate of a Veterinarian to AWS Inspector Atrooshi certifying that he was of the opinion that it was necessary to remove certain animals to relieve them of their distress. AWS removed the animals the same day. The Applicant challenged the removal of the animals before the Board. The Board determined the removal of the animals was lawful,1 a finding that is not challenged in this judicial review application.
[5] The animals were relocated to boarding facilities where they were evaluated and treated as required. Some of the animals were returned to the Applicant in September 2022. The AWS issued eight Decisions to Keep in Care to the Applicant, which the Applicant appealed to the Board.
[6] Under s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (“CAWI”) may decide to keep an animal that was removed under s. 31(1) in its care if (a) the CAWI determines it is necessary to relieve its distress, or (b) the CAWI has reasonable grounds to believe that the animal may be placed in distress if returned to its owner, or custodian. “Distress” is defined 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: PAWS Act, s. 1(1).
[7] The Applicant sought the return of all animals and that the seven SOAs be revoked or varied.
[8] AWS Regional Supervisor Mallory gave evidence on each animal’s distress, and was cross- examined by the Applicant.
[9] The Board found each Decision to Keep in Care to be reasonable. The Board states, at para. 29, that:[t]he Respondent has demonstrated reasonable grounds that the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the care of the Appellant as its evidence showed an extended period of neglect of the animals and a lack of basic care including human interaction, and the provision of a safe, clean, and hazard-free environment by the Appellant. While the Respondent did not provide an individualized assessment of each animal, its evidence of inadequate hoof care of several species, mud-caked coats, and muscular wasting was indicative that the animals were not receiving the care required under O. Reg. 444/19 and that the basic standards of care for animals have not been provided by the Appellant and is unlikely to be provided to the animals if they are returned. [1 Geddes v. Chief Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONACRB 23.] [10] While the Board recognized that the Applicant made some improvements to the animals’ physical environment, the Board found that this was in response to issues raised by the AWS and that there was no evidence of the Applicant’s commitment to a proactive plan to improve conditions.
[11] The Board confirmed each of the seven SOAs on the basis of submitted invoices. The Applicant challenged the care provided to the animals, the amounts charged, the continued keeping of the animals, submitted that the removal of the animals caused distress to the animals or otherwise violated regulations, and submitted that the owner/custodian has an inability to pay. The Board found that these submissions were not sufficiently supported. The Applicant was ordered to pay $105,059.35 to the Minister of Finance.
[12] The Applicant sought reconsideration by the Board. In a decision dated May 15, 20232, (the “Reconsideration Decision”), the Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the Board had not violated the rules of procedural fairness and had not made an error of law such that a different result would have been reached if the error had not been made.
[13] The Board found that although it did not reference an affidavit (with exhibits) of the Applicant’s veterinarian, Dr. DeGroot, in the Initial Decision, it was not an error as it was not relevant. The Board therefore found that it had not failed to consider the Applicant’s evidence in the Initial Decision.
[14] The Board found that in the Initial Decision, while it “neglected to acknowledge the case law submitted by the Applicant, this was not an error in law” (Reconsideration Decision, at para. 37) because this case law was irrelevant (including as it related to hearsay), and it would not have altered the decision.
[15] With respect to four Board decisions that the Applicant referenced in closing submissions, the Board noted, at para. 18, that the cases were distinguishable and that the Board in its Initial Decision “chose not to write a detailed assessment of the cases in its decision to show why they were distinguishable. Choosing not to discuss cases that are not relevant to a decision is not an error in law.”
[16] The Board found that it had not provided “deficient” reasons, arising from its alleged failure to consider or reference the Applicant’s evidence and case law. The Board stated that it had referenced the Applicant’s arguments, but that the Board had not been provided any compelling evidence.
[17] Finally, the Board found that it had not made any errors of fact that would have altered the outcome. [2 Reported at 2023 ONACRB 41.]
|
