|
PAWS - Warrantless Search and Seizure [s.29]. Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
In Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR from ACRB PAWS appeal hearing that 'proceeded in the absence of the party' [SPPA s.7], here where an issue was a warrantless search and seizure [under PAWS s.29]:[3] As set out in the Appeal Decision, the Board determined that Animal Welfare Services inspectors acted reasonably when they entered the Applicant’s apartment pursuant to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13, and seized the forty one cats, which were in a state of distress. All three appeals were dismissed.
[4] Under s. 29 of the Act, an animal welfare inspector may enter a place used as a dwelling without a warrant and search for an animal if the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that an animal in the place is in critical distress.
....
[24] The applicant also submits that the Appeal Decision regarding entry without a warrant is unreasonable. This submission is founded on the constitutional arguments that she gave notice of, but did not make, at the hearing. However, we have also considered whether the applicant has shown that the Appeal Decision unreasonable under the relevant statutory authorization for entry without a warrant.
....
[27] The Board considered the statutory provision that permits entry without a warrant, specifically s. 29 of the Act. Section 29 requires that the inspector have “reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is in distress, and that the time required to obtain a warrant “may result in serious injury or death to the animal.”
[28] The Board considered the evidence before it, including evidence from the inspector who held the belief that there should be entry without a warrant. The Board considered the evidence about the number of cats, the lack of consistent access to food and water, the lack of evidence that the owner could provide for care or have arranged for temporary care, and the suspected unsanitary conditions.
[29] The Board considered the evidence regarding obtaining a warrant and was satisfied that the inspector had turned his mind to whether the time required to get a warrant “may result in injury or death” of an animal. We agree with the applicant that a warrant should not take weeks to obtain, as the inspector seemed to suppose, but we also consider the Board's decision that the delay to obtain a warrant, in all the circumstances, did justify immediate entry to relieve these animals from ongoing serious distress.
|
