Animal in Distress (PAWSA)

From Riverview Legal Group


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

15 (1) No person shall cause an animal to be in distress.

(2) No owner or custodian of an animal shall permit the animal to be in distress.
(3) No person shall knowingly or recklessly cause an animal to be exposed to an undue risk of distress.
(4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply in respect of,
(a) an activity permitted under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 in relation to wildlife in the wild;
(b) an activity permitted under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 or the Fisheries Act (Canada) in relation to fish;
(c) an activity regarding agricultural animal care, management or husbandry carried on in accordance with,
(i) any standards of care or administrative requirements that expressly provide that they apply to that activity, or
(ii) if no standards of care or administrative requirements expressly provide that they apply to that activity, the reasonable and generally accepted practices of agricultural animal care, management or husbandry;
(d) a prescribed class of animals or animals living in prescribed circumstances or conditions; and
(e) prescribed activities.
(5) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply to,
(a) a veterinarian providing veterinary care, or boarding an animal as part of its care, in accordance with the standards of practice established under the Veterinarians Act;
(b) a person acting under the supervision of a veterinarian described in clause (a); and
(c) a person acting under the orders of a veterinarian described in clause (a), but only in respect of what the person does or does not do in following those orders.

[1]

Shelley Langstaff v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2020 ONACRB 6 (CanLII)[2]

4. The Inspector attended the Community Center on June 1, 2020 at 11:15 am to follow-up with the Compliance Order issued to the Appellant on May 28, 2020, and the following events took place:

a. The Appellant was leaving the Community Center with Marley as the Inspector arrived. The Appellant told the Inspector that a veterinary appointment had been made for June 11, 2020. When the Inspector asked where the appointment was made, the Appellant began to walk away from the Inspector, shouted profanities at her, and refused to discuss the Compliance Order.
b. As the Appellant walked away with Marley, the Inspector observed Marley to have shallow and heavy breathing, that his legs were not bending properly, and the Appellant was pulling him using the leash. The Inspector followed the Appellant to the TTC bus shelter while the Appellant continued to scream profanities at the Inspector. The Inspector observed Marley’s gait to appear abnormal. The Inspector continued to make efforts to speak with the Appellant to obtain further information about the veterinary appointment, but the Appellant accused the Inspector of having relatives in the Community Center who were poisoning her.
c. Due to her concerns for Marley’s well-being, the Inspector requested the assistance of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”). By the time the police arrived, the Appellant had boarded a bus, which remained stationary. Members of the TPS boarded the bus, took possession of Marley, and turned him over to the Inspector. The Appellant left the scene to an unknown location and Marley was taken to the local Humane Society to be examined by a veterinarian.
d. On June 1, 2020 at 2:40 pm, the Inspector returned to the Community Center in an effort to locate the Appellant to serve her with a Notice of Removal. The Appellant was not there at that time so the Inspector left the Notice of Removal with a staff member and asked that it be provided to the Appellant upon her return.
e. Once Marley was examined by the Humane Society’s veterinarian, he was transferred at the veterinarian’s recommendation to the Animal Emergency Hospital, where he was admitted overnight for monitoring. He was returned to the local Humane Society on the morning of June 2, 2020.
f. On June 2, 2020, Marley was taken to the MacKay Animal Hospital at 421 Dundas Street, Whitby, for examination. The veterinarian at that hospital, Dr. Punniamoonthy, DVM, called the Inspector to advise that Marley was not doing well, and that x-rays could not be taken because he was anxious. She was concerned that he was still showing signs of dehydration and recommended that he be taken to the Emergency Hospital for overnight monitoring. Marley was admitted there for three days before being returned to the local Humane Society. Over the course of the three days, Marley received diagnostic testing and long-term treatment recommendations.


[2]

References

  1. Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/19p13>, reterived 2021-04-22
  2. 2.0 2.1 Shelley Langstaff v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2020 ONACRB 6 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j8qm2>, retrieved on 2021-04-22