In-Care - Re: Definition (POA)

Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13

2 (1) The Minister shall appoint a Chief Animal Welfare Inspector and may appoint one or more deputy Chief Animal Welfare Inspectors.

(2) The duties of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector are as follows:

1. To appoint animal welfare inspectors.

2. To supervise, direct and control animal welfare inspectors in the performance of their duties and in the exercise of their powers.

3. To ensure that animal welfare inspectors receive appropriate training respecting their powers and duties.

4. To handle complaints about animal welfare inspectors other than the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

5. To arrange for the provision of necessaries to, and otherwise arrange for the care of, any animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care or otherwise in the possession of an animal welfare inspector.

6. To arrange for analyses in relation to the following:

i. The management or allocation of resources related to this Act.

ii. The delivery of programs and services related to this Act.

iii. The evaluation of programs and services related to this Act.

7. To perform such other duties as are assigned to him or her by or under this or any other Act, including any duties prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

...

31 (1) An animal welfare inspector may 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 if,

(a) a veterinarian has advised the inspector in writing that alleviating the animal’s distress necessitates its removal;

(b) the inspector has inspected the animal and has reasonable grounds for believing that the animal is in distress and the owner or custodian of the animal is not present and cannot be found promptly; or

(c) an order respecting the animal has been made under section 30 and the order has not been complied with.

...

(7) The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector shall immediately serve written notice of his or her decision to keep an animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care in accordance with subsection (6) on the owner or custodian of the animal, if known.

...

44 (1) An animal welfare inspector who is lawfully in any place may, without a warrant, seize any animal or thing that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe,

(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence under this Act;

(b) has been used in the commission of an offence under this Act;

(c) will afford evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act; or

(d) is intermixed with a thing referred to in clause (a), (b) or (c).

..

(7) Any animal or thing seized and not forfeited under this section shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized if,

(a) a charge is not laid at the conclusion of the investigation; or

(b) a charge is laid but, when the charge is finally disposed of, the defendant is acquitted or the charge is dismissed or withdrawn.

(8) Despite subsection (7), if the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that the animal may be placed in distress or trained to fight another animal if returned to its owner or custodian,

(a) the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may decide to take the animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care; and

(b) the notice provisions in subsections 31 (7) and (8) apply, with necessary modifications.

Tanis v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 ONACRB 22 (CanLII)

[26] I will address one point, raised by Inspector Gerow in his evidence as it relates to the return of Mia – his suggestion to the appellant in or about August 25, 2021 that she surrender of the cat, due to the significant costs for her care. The case conference report and order indicates that the respondent gave consideration to keeping the cat in care pursuant to s. 31(6) of the Act. The respondent’s representative, in submissions, suggested that if an owner cannot afford to care for their animal, they may be under an obligation to give them up, the inference being that the appellant may not have the financial resources to care for Mia in the future, potentially resulting in distress to the cat. Section 31(6) states that the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may decide to keep an animal that was removed in their care if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the animal may be placed in distress if returned to the owner. However, the respondent confirmed on September 13, 2021, that the cat was not in distress and it would not be seeking to keep the cat in care. Yet, by refusing to come to any accommodation with the appellant, resulting in the accrual of more costs, the respondent may be seen as effectively presenting the appellant with no alternative but to surrender her cat without them having to exercise their powers under s. 31(6) of the Act.

McGreal v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 ONACRB 23 (CanLII)

[76] Section 38(9) of the Act gives the Board powers to Order than an animal removed under subsection 31(1) be returned to the owner.

[77] I have reviewed the evidence before me and decline to order the return of the remaining 7 horses to the appellant, Suzanne McGreal. My decision is based on consideration of two factors: compliance with the Compliance Order, including the ability to follow veterinarian recommendations for nutrition, dental care, and farrier care; and the condition of the horses when they are returned.

[78] As described in the previous section, the Compliance Order has not been fully addressed as of this hearing. In addition, while it appears that the remaining horses are improving, it is not evident that their distress has resolved. By Dr. Robertson’s testimony, their hooves still require more frequent attention than the usual schedule. While Dr. Wilson was not called as a witness, I found the detail of the individual medical reports compelling, and Dr. Wilson’s summary report noted that several horses are still experiencing issues and need ongoing dental attention. I am convinced by this report, in particular because Dr. Wilson has had responsibility for the ongoing care of the horses from July 13, 2021 until the date when she wrote her report on September 9, 2021, some seven weeks. As such, I decline to make an order for the return of the remaining horses that are still in care at this time.