Animal Care Review Board
Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Patricia Williams
Appellant
And
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Peter Simmons, Member
For the Appellant: Patricia Williams, Self-represented For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Heard: January 4, 2024
BACKGROUND
1Patricia Williams, the Appellant, of St. Catharines, Ontario, is the owner of a dog named "SCARR".
2On November 13, 2023, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) removed SCARR from the Appellant's premises, stating that it was found without food, was being kept in unsanitary conditions, required a veterinary examination, and the Appellant was not providing necessary care.
3On November 14, 2023, AWS served on the Appellant a Notice of Decision to Keep an Animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's Care (Keep in Care Decision) on the basis that the dog may be placed in distress if returned to her.
4On November 15, 2023, AWS served on the Appellant a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $459.34 for the provision of necessaries to SCARR.
5The Appellant appealed the Keep in Care Decision to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on November 30, 2023. The SOA was not appealed to the Board.
6On December 15, 2023, the parties participated in case conference at which the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Respondent, indicated that they intend to file a Motion to Dismiss the appeal of the Keep in Care Decision.
7The Respondent filed their Motion to Dismiss with the Board and the Appellant on December 20, 2023.
8On January 4, 2023, a motion hearing was held to consider the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the appeal of the Keep in Care Decision on the basis that the Board has no remedy available to it on that appeal since the Appellant had not paid the SOA, and therefore the dog has been forfeited to the Crown.
9The Appellant did not attend the hearing. Attempts to contact the Appellant on January 4, 2024, were unsuccessful and the hearing proceeded in her absence pursuant to s.7(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990 (SPPA) as I was satisfied that the Appellant had received notice of the hearing. The Appellant did not provide submissions on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss by the December 28, 2023, deadline.
RESULT
10The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The appeal of the Keep in Care Decision (ACRB File No. 15460) dated November 14, 2023, related to the Appellant's dog, SCARR, is dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
11The grounds for the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss include:
- That the appeal of the Keep in Care Decision is moot as there is no remedy available to the Board.
- That the SOA served on the Appellant in respect of SCARR was not paid within the period prescribed in legislation.
- That non-payment of an SOA resulted in the forfeiture of the dog, as outlined in section 35(4)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act). Accordingly, on December 7, 2023, the Appellant forfeited her dog to the Crown because the SOA had not been paid. Forfeiture is a statutory mechanism that automatically occurs when an owner has failed to pay an SOA. It is not triggered or stayed by actions of the Crown, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, or the Board.
- The Board has no jurisdiction with respect to forfeiture. Once animals are forfeited to the Crown, they become the property of the Crown, and the previous owner/custodian ceases to have any rights of ownership or possession over the animals.
- The only remedy available to the Board for an appeal of a Keep in Care Decision is an order to return the animal under section 38(9) of the PAWS Act. Therefore, it is no longer within the Board's power to return the animal to the Appellant because ownership of the dog transferred to the Crown through forfeiture.
12The Appellant did not attend the motion hearing and did not file submissions in response to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
13Without the benefit of a response or submissions from the Appellant, I do not have her position on the Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, I find the Respondent's motion was uncontested by the Appellant.
14I find that the Appellant was served an SOA and did not pay it by the prescribed time.
15I find that in not paying the SOA by the prescribed date, the dog was forfeited to the Crown on December 7, 2023, through statutory action.
16The forfeiture makes the dog the property of the Crown, which then has two effects: a) it removes any rights of ownership or possession of the owner, in this case the Appellant; and b) it makes the Crown the owner. As the dog is no longer the property of the Appellant, the Board cannot order the dog to be returned to the Appellant even if she were successful in her appeal of the Keep in Care Decision.
17As a result of the foregoing, the dispute over the Keep in Care Decision dissolved upon forfeiture. The Board has no remedy available to it once that occurs and the Board has no power or mechanism available to it to return SCARR to the Appellant.
ORDER
18The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the appeal of the Keep in Care Decision is granted.
19The appeal in Board File No. 15460 is dismissed.
Released: January 12, 2024
___________________________
Peter Simmons, Member