Cost of an Animal In-Care (AWS)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	1872
Page Categories:	[Animal Control (POA)]
Citation:	Cost of an Animal In-Care (AWS), CLNP 1872, <6P>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/02/21

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

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

35 (1) If an animal welfare inspector has provided an animal with necessaries to relieve its distress or the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has taken an animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may, from time to time, serve on the owner or custodian of the animal a statement of account respecting the cost of the necessaries.

(2) The statement of account must have printed or written on it the content of subsections 38 (2) and (5).

(3) An owner or custodian who receives a statement of account under subsection (1) is, subject to an order made under subsection 38 (9), liable for the amount specified in the statement.

(4) Subject to any agreement made under subsection (5), the animal is forfeited to the Crown if,

(a) the owner or custodian does not appeal the statement of account in accordance with subsection 38 (2) and fails to pay the stated amount within a prescribed period of time after receiving the statement of account; or

(b) the owner or custodian appealed the statement of account in accordance with subsection 38 (2) but failed to pay the confirmed or varied amount within a prescribed period of time after the Board provided notice of its decision.

(5) Before the expiry of the relevant time period set out in clause (4) (a) or (b), the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may enter into a written agreement with the owner or custodian to extend the time for payment or reduce the amount that is to be paid, or both.

...

38 (1) An owner or custodian of an animal may appeal the following to the Board within five business days after receiving notice of them:

1. An order from an animal welfare inspector.

2. A decision by an animal welfare inspector to remove an animal from a place.

3. A decision to take an animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care.

(2) An owner or custodian of an animal who is served with a statement of account may apply to the Board by notice in writing to appeal the statement of account within the prescribed period after being served the statement.

O. Reg. 447/19: MINISTERIAL PRESCRIPTIONS

3. For the purposes of subsection 38 (2) of the Act, five business days is the prescribed period of time for applying to the Board.

St-Jacques v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONACRB 2 (CanLII)

[18] During his testimony, the appellant stated that he does not believe that a boarding fee of $33.05 per day is reasonable. When probed on why he thought it was not reasonable, he stated that it was because the dog should not have been taken from him in the first place. I understand this to be not an opinion on cost but based rather on his continuing view that the dog was not in distress.

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

[11] On July 27, 2021 AWS issued a statement of account (the “SOA”). The appellant is appealing the SOA in relation to the nine horses that were removed. The statement reflected costs for transporting the horses on the date of their removal to a boarding facility, boarding costs, veterinarian costs and farrier costs for the total amount of $15,084.35, including:

• Transportation costs $1,582.00
• Boarding costs ($23/horse/day) $3,342.54
• Veterinarian costs $8,634.31
• Animal care costs (Farrier services) $1,525.50

[12] On September 9, 2021 AWS issued a second SOA. The appellant is appealing the second SOA in relation to nine horses that were kept in boarding and received further treatment. The statement reflected additional boarding costs, veterinarian and farrier costs for the total amount of $11,587.21, including:

• Boarding costs ($23/horse/day from July 27 to September 7, 2021) $9,824.41
• Veterinarian costs (physical exams, sedation, euthanasia) $1,310.80
• Animal care costs (Farrier trim – 8 horses at $50/horse) $452.00

Hobson and Rodrigues v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 ONACRB 19 (CanLII)

[69] As noted at the outset, there have been two accounts issued to the appellants: one for $2428.23 for the transportation and veterinary and boarding costs from May 28 to June 3, 2021 (the June 3 SOA). That account was paid by Ms. Hobson prior to the return of the pigs to the premises on June 9, 2021. A second account, for $1267.86, was issued on June 10, 2021 for boarding the pigs from June 3 through June 8, 2021 (the June 10 SOA).

[70] I find these costs to be reasonable in the circumstances and that the accounts have been properly issued. The appellants have the onus to show that the Statement of Account should be varied; however, I heard no evidence concerning any individual item in either of the accounts which would lead to my varying them.

Michon v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2021 ONACRB 14 (CanLII)

43. The respondent issued a statement of account to the appellant on May 13, and updated statements on May 26 and June 2, 2021. As of June 2, the updated Statement of Account was as follows:

$20/day x 22 days for boarding fees - $626.90

Veterinary costs - $560.98

Milk replacer & bottle - $92.11

TOTAL - $1,279.99

44. Finally, Dr. Gaw stated that, in her opinion, given the condition of the calf on May 6, 2021, the calf was in distress and removal was warranted under the Act. As of the date of the hearing, she stated that the calf was still undergoing treatment and could not be released. She also opined that all fees associated with the calf’s care were necessary and reasonable.

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

[68] The amount of the Statement of Account is $1,594.41, including boarding charges of $25 per day per cat, and I have found this amount to be reasonable. At the hearing, I requested that the respondent do a “ballpark” calculation to determine the boarding costs for the cats that had accrued after the date of the Statement of Account. These amount to at least an additional $5,000. It is clear that the appellant does not have the financial resources to pay either amount. The amount of the Statement of Account amounts to almost 32% of her annual income from ODSP, an amount which cannot be workable for her. Although the appellant and her partner indicated that they would to pay that amount in the future, these are likely more properly characterized as an expression of desire for the return of the animals than a realistic statement of what will be possible for them.