Stephanie Redlick AKA Stephanie Alessia LOST.  

AGAIN.

COMPLETELY.

And now she owes $116,229.12 for the care of the horses she neglected and then tried unsuccessfully to blame everyone else for their horrific condition.

Please note that when she defaults on paying – which we know she will – it will be Ontario tax payers footing the bill.

16 horses were seized by Animal Welfare Services in February 2025 after Redlick failed to comply with orders under the PAWS Act.

She did not appeal:

– the removal of the horses

– the decision to keep them in care

———-
Because she didn’t pay the first bill, the horses were legally forfeited to the Crown in August 2025.

After that, AWS sent her a second bill for the real costs of:

– transportation

– boarding

– veterinary care

– ongoing animal care

That bill? $118,831.19 (later reduced slightly).

Stephanie Redlick argued that:

1. The horses were fine and never should have been removed

2. The seizure was illegal

3. Any health problems were someone else’s fault

4. The costs were unnecessary

5. Everyone was biased against her

She also:

– Tried to throw out AWS evidence on a technicality (failed)

– Filed multiple bias motions against the adjudicator (failed harder)

– Repeatedly disconnected from the hearing when things didn’t go her way

– Accused the adjudicator of abuse… for enforcing basic rules like “don’t interrupt”

Yes. Really.

The Animal Care Review Board found that:

– AWS followed the law

– The costs were real, documented, and reasonable

– The horses were boarded for nearly six months, at standard market rates

– Veterinary care was necessary, reviewed line-by-line by an independent equine veterinarian

– Redlick offered zero evidence that:

– costs were inflated

– cheaper alternatives existed

– care was unnecessary

In fact, she never actually challenged the numbers — she just kept trying to relitigate the seizure she never appealed in the first place.

That’s not a legal strategy. That’s denial.

The adjudicator made this crystal clear:

Disagreeing with rulings does NOT equal bias

Being told to follow rules does NOT equal abuse

Interrupting, disconnecting, and attacking the adjudicator does NOT equal proof of unfairness

There was no evidence of bias.

None. Zip. Zero.

The motions were dismissed — repeatedly — because they were baseless.

Here’s where the bill landed:

– Transportation: reasonable

– Boarding: ~$28–30 per horse per day (very normal)

– Vet & care costs: reviewed and mostly upheld

– Small reduction applied (about $2,600) after expert review

Final amount owed:

$116,229.12

Payable to the Minister of Finance.

– Redlick ignored orders to properly provide for 16 horses

– Didn’t appeal when she should have

– Didn’t pay when required

– Lost the horses

Then tried to dodge the bill by blaming:

– AWS

– the boarding facilities

– the vets

– the adjudicator

– the process itself

In other words she blamed everyone but herself.

The Board wasn’t buying it.

This wasn’t a close call.

This was a methodical dismantling of excuses, theatrics, and bad faith arguments.

Redlick you don’t get to:

– neglect animals

– ignore lawful orders

– force the public to pay to clean up the mess

– and then cry foul when the invoice arrives

You made the problem. You pay the bill.

And this time, the system held.

 Yes — she is still legally allowed to have horses. For now.

Nothing in this decision bans Stephanie Redlick from owning, handling, or acquiring horses in Ontario. AT LEAST NOT YET.

Why?

Because this part of the proceedings was only about the money — the cost of caring for the 16 horses after they were seized.

It was not a prohibition hearing.

It was not a trial to determine if she was guilty of abuse.

That will come later.

And it had nothing to do with future ownership restrictions.

So despite:

-16 horses seized

– horses forfeited to the Crown

– over $116,000 in public costs confirmed

– ongoing animal-welfare charges

She can still legally possess horses today.

That is a gaping hole in Ontario’s animal-protection framework.

At present, Stephanie Redlick has two horses in her possession. And the cheque for the barn rental where they currently are – bounced – no surprise – right?

Which means:

– she needs somewhere to keep them

– she needs someone willing to board them

– and she has every incentive to move them quietly, quickly, and without scrutiny

If history is any guide, she will be looking for:

– a field

– a “temporary” arrangement

– a sympathetic or uninformed barn owner

– a private individual outside the horse world

And she will not lead with the full story.

Ontario currently allows someone to:

– have animals seized for neglect

– rack up six-figure care costs

– lose animals by forfeiture

– and immediately go out and get more animals

All before:

– animal neglect/abuse charges are resolved

– guilt is proven

– sentencing occurs

That is backwards.

There must be a mechanism allowing Animal Welfare Services to:

– prohibit ownership

– prohibit custody

– prohibit handling or care

– on an interim basis

…where there is a demonstrated pattern of neglect, non-compliance, or risk — separate before being found guilty.

Public safety allows this in other contexts.

Animal safety should too.

If you are approached to board one to two or more  horses — especially under:

– vague circumstances

– short timelines

– sob stories

– without a contract, vet references, barn references, ID, deposit and first month

– “temporary” arrangements

Stop. Ask questions. Verify.

Because once horses are on your property, you may be the one left feeding them, caring for them, or dealing with the fallout – and the fallout can include being held responsible for any neglect.

This is not hypothetical.

This has already happened — repeatedly.

Separate and apart from animal-welfare matters:

This Thursday, January 8, 2026:

Stephanie Redlick is back in criminal court on  theft and fraud charges

Next Thursday, January 15, 2026:

She appears again on a whole new set of theft and fraud criminal charges

Different files.

Yet again – theft and fraud charges

Same pattern.

Until Ontario closes this loophole:

– animals remain at risk
–  the public keeps paying
– and people like Redlick keep cycling through the system

Seizure without prohibition is a half-measure.

And half-measures still leave animals exposed.

This is why vigilance matters.

This is why people need to talk.

And this is why “just two horses” is never just two horses.

Every year thousands of horses are routinely slaughtered in Canada, for human consumption, but you can help us ban horse slaughter in Canada and beyond.

Some of the meat is consumed in Canada, and much of it is shipped to the European Union, and other markets, including Japan.

This barbaric practice is currently not legal in the United States, so horses from the United States are shipped to Canada, and to Mexico, to be slaughtered.

In addition Canada allows for the transportation of live horses to Japan to be slaughtered for human consumption, and unfortunately the transportation of horses destined for slaughter within Canada, and by air to Japan for slaughter, is far from humane.

LEARN MORE HERE <==

We are 100% volunteer & crowdfunded.

0% goes towards salaries. Yes, ZERO.