In December 2014, the applicant had five ponies seized after departmental inspectors conducted an investigation and determined that the ponies were in distress. When the applicant requested a review from the Minister of Agriculture to have the ponies returned to her, it was determined that she was not fit to care for them and the request was declined.
The applicant applied for judicial review of the decision and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Minister for further consideration. The first judicial review application was granted because the initial decision did not properly consider the issues of whether the animals should be returned to the applicant and returned to the Minister for further consideration.
When it was determined again that the ponies should not be returned to the applicant, she sought judicial review of that decision.
It was determined that the authority to seize and detain animals is governed by their wellbeing and the fitness of owners to care for them. It would be unreasonable to interpret that legislation as dictating that failure to follow statutory procedure must override the best interests and welfare of the animals. Although surprised by the Deputy Minister’s decision to ignore the seizure issue, the court could not say that his emphasis on the fitness of Ms. Brennan to care for the ponies and his conclusion not to return them was unreasonable in all of the circumstances.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The applicant applied for another judicial review on this decision, which can be found here.