Removal of Animal in Distress

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-20
CLNP Page ID:	1628
Page Categories:	Ontario Animal Care and Review Board
Citation:	Removal of Animal in Distress, CLNP 1628, <3i>, retrieved on 2024-04-20
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2021/09/03

Swanson v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2020 ONACRB 11 (CanLII)

[6] Section 30(1) of the Act permits an animal welfare inspector to remove an animal from the place where it is and take possession of the animal for the purpose of providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress[1] if a veterinarian has advised the inspector in writing that alleviating the animal’s distress necessitates its removal.

(...)

Issue 1: Were the animals removed from Ms. Swanson’s property in distress?

[38] Dr. Robertson testified that in his opinion, the two horses, two ponies, and six chickens removed from Ms. Swanson’s care were in distress. Specifically, he noted that the ponies and horses were in need of hoof care and that one of the ponies was emaciated and had significant dental issues that needed to be addressed. He explained that in his view, the animals’ distress was as a result of Ms. Swanson’s inability and/or failure to provide them with the adequate and ongoing care they needed.

[39] I am satisfied based on Dr. Robertson’s opinion, as well as the testimony and photographic evidence presented by Inspector Baker and Inspector Giroux, that the two ponies and two horses were in distress at the time the decision was made to remove the animals from Ms. Swanson’s care. Each of these animals required, at a minimum, urgent hoof care, which it appears they had not received for several months.

(...)

Issue 2: Was the removal of the animals necessary to relieve their distress?

[41] Based on the evidence of the Inspectors and Dr. Robertson, I am satisfied that the removal of the ponies and horses was necessary to relieve their distress. Ms. Swanson had been ordered to address the hooves of Cody and Vegas but had been unable to do so by the time the search warrant was executed on October 29th. While I accept that Ms. Swanson took some steps to ameliorate the horses’ condition, including attempting to address their hooves, she conceded that she had not been able to do so even after Inspector Baker gave her ample time to do so.

[42] Having failed to properly address Cody and Vegas’ needs, it was appropriate and necessary for both the horses and the two ponies to be removed from Ms. Swanson’s care so that they could receive the care they needed. As Mr. Mack described, the animals required extensive hoof trimming, which they all received from Mr. Mack, within hours of being removed from the property.

Gowland v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector 2021 ONACRB 2, 2021 ONACRB 2 (CanLII)

[8] Section 31(1)(c) provides that an animal welfare inspector may remove an animal in distress and take possession of the animal for the purposes of providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress if, among other things, an order respecting the animal has been made under s. 30 of the Act and the order has not been complied with.

[9] Distress is defined in s. 1(1) as “a 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.”

(...)

November 9, 2020 Visit

[31] Inspector Frail testified that he believed that removal of the cats from the appellant’s home was necessary to relieve their distress namely, flea and ear mite infestation which was causing discomfort and could lead to infection. As well, he viewed the conditions in the home as unsanitary and unsafe, the unsanitary conditions being a potential breeding ground for internal parasites. Finally, he concluded that the cats were being neglected in that the conditions identified had not been rectified in the two months since they were first brought to the attention of the appellant.

(...)

Veterinary Examination on November 10, 2020

[34] Dr. Thompson examined all seven cats on November 10, 2020, the day following the day that they were removed from the appellant’s home. This included a nose‑to-tail physical examination, weight check, assessment of overall body condition and check of vital signs such as pulse rate and respiration.

(...)

[48] In conclusion, I find that that the entry into the home of the appellant by Inspector Frail on November 9, 2020 was lawful under s. 24(1) and (2) of the Act. As described above, the removal of the seven cats at that time was permitted under s. 31(1)(c) of the Act. In consequence, Inspector Frail’s entry (and that of the other animal welfare inspector attending with Inspector Frail that day) for the purpose of removal of the seven cats was lawful.