Ontario Civil



Appellant recklessly allowed her animals to continue in distress

Respondent removed appellant’s horses and goat. Animal Care Review Board (ACRB) ruled that removal of appellant’s horses and goat was in accordance with s. 14(1)(a) and (c) of Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Identified animals were to remain with respondent at appellant’s expense until treating veterinarian deemed them healthy for return. Animals deemed healthy by treating veterinarian were to be returned to appellant on conditions. Appellant was to pay boarding costs and additional expenses incurred relating to care or treatment of animals. Appellants appealed seeking revocation of orders, return of animals removed and setting aside of order for cost of care and treatment. Appeal dismissed. Ruling that animals were removed in compliance with Act was confirmed. Some alterations were made to orders of ACRB. There was nothing inappropriate in conduct of respondent with respect to disclosure. Animals were properly assessed as being in distress. Respondent’s orders were properly issued to appellant with conditions designed to relieve ongoing distress of animals. Appellant did not take action required by respondent’s orders to relieve distress of animals. Appellant’s concerns about respondent’s refusal to provide her with necessary disclosure fail on uncontroverted evidence that respondent did not have control over material that appellant was seeking. Appellant recklessly allowed her animals to continue in distress by failing to avail herself of many offers by respondent to assist her in securing services of qualified veterinarian. Costs of maintaining animals were reasonable. There was no delay in hearing generated by conduct of board that unfairly generated additional costs to appellant.

Hurley v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dec. 11, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., A.D. Kurke J., File No. 26834/15) 261 A.C.W.S. (3d) 509.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?