Tribunals Ontario Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Wanda Pittman Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
AMENDED MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Order Made By: Debra Backstein, Member
For the Appellant: Wanda Pittman, self-represented
For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1Wanda Pittman (the Appellant) filed an appeal with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) of a Notice of Removal related to her 13-year-old cat named Senour (the removal appeal).
2The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (the Respondent) brought a motion at the commencement of the hearing of the removal appeal asking the Board to dismiss the appeal on the basis that Senour had been forfeited to the Crown on October 17, 2024. Because of the forfeiture, the Respondent submits that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order the return of the animals as the Appellant is no longer the owner of Senour and that the removal appeal is moot.
3The Board accepts CAWI’s argument and finds that it does not have the power to order the return an animal to a previous owner. As a result of this motion decision, the Appellant’s removal appeal is dismissed and will not be proceeding to a hearing.
BACKGROUND
4On June 22, 2024, in response to a complaint, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) attended at the Appellant’s residence. As a result of their findings, an Order was issued to the Appellant directing her to obtain veterinarian care for Senour.
5AWS made multiple follow-up attempts with the Appellant to confirm compliance with the Order but were unable to reach? the Appellant until August 29, 2024. At the August 29, 2024, inspection, AWS confirmed that Senour had not been taken to a veterinarian for medical care as directed in the Order.
6On September 10, 2024, Senour was removed from the Appellant’s care due to non-compliance with the Order, pursuant to s. 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act).
7On September 15, 2024, the Appellant appealed the removal to the Board.
8A case conference took place on October 3, 2024, and according to the case conference report and order, AWS advised the Board that it had issued a Statement of Account (SOA) and Decision to Keep (DTK) to the Appellant on September 24, 2024, and September 25, 2024, respectively. The Appellant had not appealed either of these instruments but was made aware of the need to submit separate appeals to the Board within the prescribed timeframes if she wished to contest the SOA and/or DTK.
9A one-day hearing was scheduled on October 29, 2024, with respect to the removal appeal.
MOTION TO DISMISS
10Prior to the commencement of the hearing of the removal appeal, the Respondent brought a motion to dismiss the removal appeal as moot.
11The Respondent submitted that as the Appellant had not appealed the SOA in accordance with s. 38 of the PAWS Act (within 10 days of service) and had failed to pay the SOA in accordance with the statutory timeline (15 days from the date of service), Senour had been forfeited to the Crown.
12The Respondent submitted that pursuant to the statutory requirements, the Appellant would have had to have appealed the SOA by October 9, 2024, or paid the SOA by October 17, 2024. It was therefore submitted that Senour had been forfeited to the Crown as of October 18, 2024.
13The Appellant argued that she had evidence that she had in fact appealed the SOA within the required timelines.
14The hearing was adjourned and the Appellant was given until October 31, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. to provide evidence of having appealed the SOA by October 9, 2024.
15On November 6, 2024, the Board received confirmation that the Appellant had appealed the SOA, but had done so on October 10, 2024, outside of the statutory deadlines.
ISSUE
16The issue on this motion is whether the Board can hear the Appellant’s appeal of the removal given that Senour was forfeited to the Crown as of October 18, 2024.
IMPACT OF THE FORFEITURE ON THE REMOVAL APPEAL
17I find that the Board has no authority to hear the removal appeal as the Board has no remedy available to it.
18Once forfeiture occurred on October 18, 2024, the Appellant ceased to have any rights of ownership over Senour. The legal implication of forfeiture is stated in the Divisional Court’s decision in Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782, where the court explains that a person’s legal status as owner changes when the animals are forfeited to the Crown and that under s. 63(1) of the PAWS Act, CAWI is authorized to deal with the animals as if CAWI were owner.
19In a matter where forfeiture occurs because of a failure to appeal or pay an SOA within the statutory deadlines, the Board does not have the power to order the return of an animal to a previous owner.
ORDER
20The Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.
21The forfeiture of Senour ended the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the removal appeal There is no remedy available to the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act and the removal appeal is therefore moot.
22As a result of this Motion Decision, File 16271/ACRB is now closed, and no further events will be scheduled.
Released: December 9, 2024
__________________________
Debra Backstein Member, Animal Care Review Board