An Ontario woman who owns 47 animals — 10 cats, 19 rats, nine birds, four degus, two hedgehogs, a guinea pig, a chinchilla and a tortoise — has been ordered to pay nearly $15,000 in veterinary and boarding fees for the kitties.
Ajax resident Kathryn Everitt recently lost her appeal at the Ontario Animal Care Review Board of the bill levied by the province’s chief animal welfare inspector.
Animal Welfare Services received a call on May 28 about a possible case of hoarding and animal neglect, says the decision by Raymond Ramdayal, a member of the review board.
“The complainant reported that there were feces all over the floor of the home and no litter boxes provided for the several cats present. The complainant also advised that the owner does not reside at the home and the animals are unattended.”
The caller said the smell was so bad they “recommended anyone attending the home to wear a hazmat suit prior to entering.”
An inspector went by on June 3. Nobody answered the door, but there was a “very strong odour consistent with what was described by the complainant. A notice was posted on the door for the owner to contact” Animal Welfare Services.
When nobody responded, the inspector went by again two days later. She could see a kitten through a large window at the front of the house. “She noted that the kitten appeared bright, alert and responsive but she was unable to determine its body condition” so she posted a second notice to contact Animal Welfare Services.
The inspector eventually got a call from Everitt to discuss the number of animals at the home and their condition. The owner of the animals “denied the allegation that they were neglected in any way,” said the decision.
Everitt “admitted that she was struggling with hoarding.”
She told the inspector “she had another legal proceeding currently before the courts with her condominium board related to the condition of the home.”
During a June 18 visit to Everitt’s home, the inspector and a colleague “both noted a strong smell of cat urine/ammonia upon walking onto the property and approaching the front door.”
Once Everitt opened her front door “the inspectors observed a substantial amount of clutter, the smell of garbage, urine and feces. They also described a decaying smell and a significant number of flies throughout the premises.”
Animal Welfare Services issued an order requiring Everitt “provide the animals with daily access to adequate and appropriate food and water.”
It also ordered her to “provide the animals with adequate and appropriate sanitary conditions, free from garbage, urine and feces.”
Everitt was supposed to comply by June 25.
By June 19, Everitt was providing the animals with food and water. “However, the appellant had not complied with the balance of the order.”
Everitt lobbied for more time to make the changes.
But a July 2 inspection found “additional concerns” and an investigator executed a “distress warrant” on July 16 to conduct a compliance inspection. “On that day, they began the removal of the animals from inside the residence for non-compliance of issued orders to alleviate distress.”
Animal Welfare Services “incurred costs for the care and medical treatment of the animals,” said the decision.
Everitt eventually paid one bill for “the treatment and diagnostics required to alleviate the distress found within the removed animals.”
But she didn’t pay a second one issued Aug. 26 that “involved the costs associated with providing care/necessaries for 10 cats of varying age and gender.”
Everitt owed $14,966.81. She argued it should be reduced “due to financial hardship and limited ability to pay.”
Everitt “also takes issues with whether some of the medical care/testing was needed, and whether the costs associated with that care were reasonable.”
But Ramdayal found the bill “is reasonable and will not be reduced or varied.”
An inspector testified that Everitt “attempted to conceal the number of animals residing at the home. Visual inspection was complicated by the fact that the appellant was hoarding excess materials at the home. As a result, one of the things concealed in the home was a deceased animal.”
The animals “were removed for their health, safety and welfare. The care and boarding of those animals, including medical treatment, came at a cost which accumulated over time.”
One veterinarian “testified that the fees charged and reflected in the (statement of account) were reasonable and, due to discounting, were substantially below market value.”
Ramdayal “placed significant weight” on the vet’s testimony “that the medical treatments provided were necessary and within reason given his professional assessment. Had (Animal Welfare Services) not become involved in this investigation, there was nothing to suggest that the appellant would have sought medical treatment for the animals. Moreover, I am not convinced that the appellant had a reliable understanding of the number of animals present in her home and their health status at any given time, given the fact that she did not reside there consistently. In addition, the appellant, for the most part, merely asserted that the costs contained in the (statement of account) were too high but did not elaborate or provide compelling evidence to support her claim.”
Everitt “testified that she was going through a very difficult period of her life which involves her struggle with mental health and the loss of her father during the pandemic. She testified that all of this contributed to a decline in her living conditions and that of the animals that resided at the home. She admitted to not being present consistently at the home due the fact it became so cluttered.”
Everitt “showed a genuine care for the animals and a concern for their happiness and welfare in the end,” said the decision. “She acknowledged that there was still remedial work needed at her premises. She also described steps she has taken to improve her personal health status.”
Everitt “was forthcoming in her testimony stating that she came to the realization that she had taken on more animals than she could care for,” said the decision.
“She stated that she could barely take care of herself at the time. She describes the day she lost her animals to (Animal Welfare Services) as the second worst day of her life after losing her father. It has always been her hope to place the animals in safe and loving homes.”
Everitt testified that she is working to comply with the orders, but she will likely not be able to pay the bill, the decision noted.
Ramdayal found the bill was reasonable.
“I did not find her arguments compelling or persuasive. It was also revealed during the hearing that she is gainfully employed in a profession which pays well.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.