Animal Welfare Lawyer in Ontario

 Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2250 v. Syed et al., 2024 ONCAT 103

This case involves a dispute over pet-related issues within a condominium property. The applicant, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2250 (TSCC 2250), sought orders against the owner, S.S,, and his tenants, Amy Williams and Nelson Lima, for not complying with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium’s governing documents regarding pets.

TSCC 2250 received multiple complaints about the tenants’ two dogs, which were allegedly aggressive and caused various disturbances, including attacking other dogs and urinating in common areas. Despite repeated notifications and requests for compliance, the tenants did not remove the dogs, leading to TSCC 2250 filing an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the owner, S.S., failed to ensure his tenants complied with the governing documents and ordered him to take necessary measures to enforce compliance. The tenants were found to have breached multiple pet-related rules and were ordered to permanently remove their dogs from the property. Additionally, S.S. was ordered to pay TSCC 2250 $4,829.19, covering enforcement costs and partial legal fees. The tenants were also ordered to pay $1,500 for legal fees.

Gall v. Harding, 2024 BCCRT 659

This cae involved two related conflicts involving former romantic partners P.G. and J.H. form the main subject matter of this case. P.G. asserts that he is the owner of a dog named Huxley and asks for its return, saying that following their breakup, Jill banned him from seeing the dog. Huxley has always been J.H.’s dog in response. J.H. is suing P.G. in a different lawsuit, alleging that he refused to deliver her personal goods after their split and that she was charged an excessive storage cost.

These small claims are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), which was established by the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) with the goal of arbitrating disputes in an accessible, expedient, and informal manner. Self-representation is used by both sides. With the nature of the disputes and the CRT’s mandate for expeditious settlements in mind, the CRT chose to move forward with written submissions instead of an oral hearing.

The CRT evaluated whether it had jurisdiction over the disputes, determining that J.H. and P.G. were not in a marriage-like relationship for over two years, thus excluding the Family Law Act from applying. Consequently, the CRT confirmed its jurisdiction to resolve these disputes.

Regarding Huxley’s ownership, the CRT found that P.G., who initially purchased the dog, had gifted Huxley to J.H, based on evidence including text messages and affidavits. Therefore, the CRT dismissed P.G.’s claim for the dog’s return, confirming J.H. as Huxley’s rightful owner.

In Jill’s counterclaim, the CRT addressed the alleged wrongful retention of her belongings by J.H. While some items were proven to be J.H. and were ordered to be returned or compensated for, such as her personal items like glasses and couches, other claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence. J.H.’s claim for the storage fee was also dismissed, as she failed to provide evidence of her being forced to pay the fee.

In conclusion, the CRT ordered P.G. to pay J.H. $802.28 in damages, pre-judgment interest, and expenses, and to return certain personal items to her. The remaining claims from both parties were dismissed. This case shows how animal custody cases can be handled. It shows us that even if one individual initially purchased the pet, they not be necessarily entitled to it anymore if they gifted it to another individual.

Peredery v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 90

Under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, M.P. contested three rulings pertaining to the evacuation of 193 animals from her property. Horses, cattle, sheep, emus, and different birds were among them. On November 9, 2023, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) issued a compliance order requiring prompt provision for the animals’ basic needs. The animals were removed by AWS the next day as a result of their non-compliance and veterinarian advice that said removal was required to ease the animals’ discomfort. The appeal challenged the removal decision, the compliance order, and a $45,063.32 Statement of Account (SOA) for expenses incurred in the transportation, boarding, and medical care of the animals.

The Animal Care Review Board (Board), which determined that the animals’ lack of adequate care, water, food, bedding, and hygienic conditions was the cause of their distress, upheld the compliance order. In spite of M.P.’s claim that the unhygienic and intolerable living conditions were a one-time event brought on by her late return from work, the Board concluded that these problems were persistent over a significant period of time.

AWS inspectors and veterinarians provided credible evidence of the animals’ poor conditions, including malnutrition, poor hygiene, and health issues like respiratory disease in the birds. The appellant’s inconsistent testimony further undermined her position.

The Board maintained the animals’ removal, stating that it was necessary to lessen their suffering and that other compliance measures were insufficient. The SOA was adjusted to $43,684.44 in part to cover some unnecessary fees, but considering the emergency nature of the care needed, the total costs were deemed to be appropriate.

The ruling shows us the strict care requirements set out in the PAWS Act as well as the serious repercussions of non-compliance, including AWS’s power to act swiftly and forcefully to protect animals.