Mustafa Pakzad appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) after 28 pit bull-type dogs were removed from his residence in December 2021. AWS had initially investigated the property following complaints about the dogs’ living conditions and found unsanitary conditions, including excessive feces, a strong ammonia smell, and several underweight dogs.
After Pakzad failed to comply with an order requiring veterinary examinations and improved sanitary conditions, AWS obtained a warrant, returned to the residence, and removed all 28 dogs, finding that they remained in distress. Following the seizure, AWS issued an SOA totaling $31,639.68 for veterinary care, boarding, and other animal care expenses. Pakzad did not challenge the removal of the dogs but appealed the amount of the costs assessed against him.
The Animal Care Review Board determined that the removal of the dogs and the veterinary treatment provided were justified and necessary to relieve the animals’ distress. However, the Board found that the boarding costs charged by AWS were excessive. While the veterinary expenses were upheld as reasonable, the Board reduced the daily boarding rate from $35 to $25 per dog and varied the SOA from $31,639.68 to $22,819.68. The Board also calculated the costs associated with Pakzad’s primary dog, Batch, separately and ordered that Batch could be returned if Pakzad paid $814.99 and complied with all outstanding animal welfare orders.
This case shows the Board’s willingness to reduce unreasonable animal welfare enforcement costs while still holding owners accountable. A notable aspect of the decision was the Board’s recognition of the strong bond between Pakzad and his dog, Batch, and the positive role the dog had played in helping him improve his life (para. 31). As a result, the Board allowed Pakzad an opportunity to regain custody of Batch despite being unable to pay the full SOA.
https://canlii.ca/t/jnbxn