Animal Care Review Board
Application under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Lisa Lachapelle Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
MOTION DECISION
Order Made By: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair (A)
For the Appellant: Lisa Lachapelle, self-represented
For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Held in writing
OVERVIEW
1Lisa Lachapelle has filed an application with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) seeking the return of 75 dogs that were removed from her care in May 2024.
2The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought a motion asking the Board to dismiss Ms. Lachapelle’s application because the dogs were forfeited to the Crown in July 2024. Because of the forfeiture, CAWI submits that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order the return of the animals as Ms. Lachapelle is no longer their owner, and that her application is therefore moot.
3The Board accepts CAWI’s argument and finds that, in the specific circumstances of this case, it does not have the power to order the return of the animals to a previous owner. As a result of this motion decision, Ms. Lachapelle’s application is dismissed and will not be proceeding to a hearing.
BACKGROUND
4In May 2024, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) inspectors attended Ms. Lachapelle’s property in response to a report of animals in distress. Later that day, AWS removed all 75 dogs from the property to relieve their distress, which is a power they have under s. 31(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 1990, c. 13 (PAWS Act).
5The next day, CAWI issued a decision to keep the animals in care, pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act. One week later, it issued a second decision to keep the animals in care, citing the need to provide them with ongoing medical treatment.
6In June 2024, CAWI issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to Ms. Lachapelle requiring her to pay the costs of caring for the 75 dogs.
7It is agreed by both parties that Ms. Lachapelle did not appeal the notice of removal or the two decisions to keep the animals in care. In addition, she neither appealed nor paid the SOA within the timelines set out in the PAWS Act. These timelines require an appeal of an SOA to be filed 10 business days after service of the document or payment of the SOA to be made within 15 business days from the date it is served. Neither of these things happened.
8Because the SOA was not paid, Ms. Lachapelle forfeited the dogs to the Crown on July 9, 2024. Based on the evidence filed in this motion, CAWI sent Ms. Lachapelle a letter notifying her of the forfeiture on that same date. The forfeiture happened by operation of s. 35(4)(a) of the PAWS Act, which provides that an animal is forfeited to the Crown if the owner does not appeal the SOA in accordance with section 38 and fails to pay the stated amount within the prescribed time.
9On July 15, Ms. Lachapelle filed a Notice of Appeal with the Board in an attempt to appeal the forfeiture. The Board does not have the power to hear an appeal of a forfeiture.
10On July 24, Ms. Lachapelle filed an “Application for return of animal” under s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act. This section permits the owner of an animal that has been removed or kept in care to apply to the Board by notice in writing to have the animal returned if the conditions that caused the animal to be kept into CAWI’s care have ceased to exist. This application is the subject of this motion.
ISSUE
11The issue on this motion is whether the Board can hear Ms. Lachapelle’s application given that the dogs were forfeit to the Crown when she neither appealed nor paid the SOA.
IMPACT OF FORFEITURE ON RETURN APPLICATION
12For the reasons that follow, I find that the Board has no authority to order the return of the dogs to Ms. Lachapelle as they were forfeited to the Crown.
13Ms. Lachapelle makes a number of submissions on this motion in which she challenges the validity of the removal of the dogs, the decisions to keep the dogs in care, and the veterinary services and bills included in the SOA. She also takes issue with the fact that a reasonable payment plan was not offered to her. She states that she has been clear about wanting the dogs returned to her and that an appeal of the SOA was assumed when she appealed the forfeiture. For these reasons, she states that the application should proceed.
14While I appreciate that Ms. Lachapelle finds herself in a difficult situation, I am not persuaded by her arguments on why the application should not be dismissed. An application for the return of animals is not an opportunity to challenge earlier decisions of AWS that were not appealed on time.
15As for the argument that the appeal of the SOA was “assumed,” an appeal of an SOA cannot be initiated unless the individual files a Notice of Appeal stating their grounds for challenging the SOA, attaches a copy of the document being appealed, and does so by the deadline. These steps were not completed in this case.
16Turning next to the application, return applications under s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act permit the owner or custodian of an animal that was removed and/or kept in care to seek the return of the animal if the conditions that caused the animal to be placed in distress have ceased to exist. Section 38(9)2 of the PAWS Act gives the Board the power to order the return of an animal removed under subsection 31(1) or taken into care under subsection 31(6) to the owner or custodian.
17CAWI argues, and I agree, that in this case, the Board no longer has the power to order the return of the dogs to Ms. Lachapelle because she is no longer their owner. Once forfeiture occurred on July 19, 2024, Ms. Lachapelle ceased to have any rights of ownership over the animals. This 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 forfeit 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 the owner.
18In a matter where there was no appeal of the removal decision, the decisions to keep in care, or the statement of account, and forfeiture occurred as a result of the non-payment of a statement of account, the Board does not have the power to order the return of the animals to a previous owner.
ORDER
19CAWI’s motion is granted. The application for the return of the animals is dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of the animals to Ms. Lachapelle.
Released: September 27, 2024
________________________________
Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair (A)