Tribunals Ontario
Animal Care Review Board
Date: 2025-02-18
Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13
Between:
Shannon Schlivert
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
AMENDED MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Alisa Chaplick, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Shannon Schlivert, self-represented
For the Respondent: Adrien Iafrate, Counsel
Heard in writing: February 14, 2025
BACKGROUND
1Shannon Schlivert (the “Appellant”) was the owner of 72 cats and 1 dog. The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (the “Respondent”) decided to keep these animals in its care on December 19, 2024 (“DTK”) due to concerns it had over matters including unsanitary conditions and unsafe ammonia levels.
2The Respondent issued a Statement of Account in the amount of $26,683.26 (the “SOA”) to the Appellant on December 15, 2024.
3On December 30, 2024, the Appellant appealed the DTK.
MOTION
4The Respondent filed a Notice of Motion and submissions on January 21, 2025, asking the Board to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of the DTK because the animals were forfeited to the Crown in January 2025 after the Appellant neither paid nor appealed the SOA within the required timeframes. Due to 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 their owner, and her appeal is therefore moot.
5On January 23, 2025, the Respondent filed supplementary submissions with the Board. In those submissions, the Respondent clarified that the DTK pertains to 65 cats and 1 dog that the Respondent argues were forfeited to the Crown. The Respondent states that the DTK also pertains to 5 kittens that were born in care on December 11, 2024, and 2 kittens that were born in care on December 15, 2024. The Respondent states that these 7 kittens were born from 1 of the cats that had been removed from the Appellant. Costs related to these 7 kittens were not included in the SOA and accordingly, they have not been forfeited to the Crown. The Respondent submits that the Appellant’s appeal of the DTK should not be dismissed in its entirety but the appeal should be restricted to only the 7 kittens that were born in care and have not been forfeited.
6On January 24, 2025, the Board issued a Notice of Written Motion Hearing directing that the Appellant, Ms. Schlivert, serve any materials she intended to rely on in response to the motion and file them with the Board by January 29, 2025. The Respondent was given until February 3, 2025 to file reply submissions, if any.
7Neither party filed submissions following the issuance of the Notice of Written Motion Hearing.
ISSUE
8In deciding whether to grant or dismiss the Respondent’s motion, the Board must determine the following:
a. Does the Board have jurisdiction to return animals to a previous owner after they have been forfeited to the Crown?
RESULT
9The Board accepts the Respondent’s argument and finds that, in the specific circumstances of this case, it does not have the power to order the return of the 65 cats and 1 dog. The Board finds that these animals were forfeit to the Crown when the Appellant neither paid nor appealed the SOA that reflected costs incurred to care for these animals within the required timeframes.
10As a result of this motion decision, the Appellant’s appeal of the DTK will be limited to the 7 kittens that were born in care and have not been forfeited.
ANALYSIS
Does the Board have jurisdiction to return animals to a previous owner after they have been forfeited to the Crown?
11Typically, the Board can order the return of animals to the owner in a successful appeal of a DTK. However, the Board does not have the jurisdiction to return animals to a previous owner after they have been forfeited to the Crown. As the 65 cats and 1 dog have been forfeited to the Crown, the Board cannot order that they be returned to the Appellant as a remedy in this matter.
12Pursuant to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (“PAWS Act”)1, forfeiture of an animal to the Crown occurs automatically if the owner or custodian of an animal does not take one of two actions after being served with a SOA:
appeal the SOA to the Board within 10 business days, or
pay the SOA within 15 business days.2
13In this matter, the Appellant was served with a SOA covering costs related to the 65 cats and 1 dog on December 15, 2024. The Appellant neither appealed the SOA nor paid the SOA within the time periods mentioned above. This led to the 65 cats and 1 dog’s forfeiture to the Crown on January 9, 2025.
14Although the Appellant attempted to appeal the SOA on January 6, 2025, she was advised by the Board on January 13, 2025, that the appeal could not be processed because it was filed later than the legislative time period of 10 business days after receipt. A late appeal that could not be accepted by the Board does not change the analysis regarding forfeiture.
15The Ontario Divisional Court has found that once forfeiture occurs, the previous owner or custodian “ceases to have any rights of ownership or possession”.3 Based on the reasoning of the Ontario Divisional Court, which is binding on the Board, the Appellant no longer has any rights of ownership or possession over the 65 cats and 1 dog.
16However, the appeal of the DTK can proceed in relation to the 7 kittens that were born in care, since costs related to those kittens were not included in the SOA and those kittens have not been forfeited.
ORDER
17I grant the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal regarding the 65 cats and 1 dog because the appeal is moot. The Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of animals to a previous owner once they have been forfeited to the Crown. As the 65 cats and 1 dog have been forfeited to the Crown, they cannot be returned to the Appellant.
18The hearing of the appeal of the DTK will proceed with respect to the 7 kittens that were born in care and have not been forfeited.
Released: February 18, 2025
Alisa Chaplick, Vice-Chair
(a) the owner or custodian does not appeal the statement of account in accordance with section 38 and fails to pay the stated amount within a prescribed period of time after being served the statement of account; or (b) the owner or custodian appealed the statement of account in accordance with section 38 but failed to pay the confirmed or varied amount within a prescribed period of time after the Board provided notice of its decision.
Footnotes
- (4) Subject to any agreement made under subsection (5), the animal is forfeited to the Crown if,
- PAWS Act, s. 35(4); Ministerial Prescriptions, O Reg 447/19, ss. 1(1), 1(2) and 3.
- Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 at para. 9.