Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 03/07/2025

Appeals and Application under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.

Between:

Dayan Quesada Appellant / Applicant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Order Made By: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant / Applicant: Did not attend For the Respondent: Erin MacGillivray, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: March 3, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Dayan Quesada (Appellant) filed the following appeals and application with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) in relation to her 10-year-old bulldog mix dog named Shiloh:

Notice of Removal Board File No. 16667

Decision to Keep in Care Board File No. 16681

Application for Return of Animals (Application for Return) Board File No. 16683

2On February 21, 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) brought a motion to dismiss the two appeals and one application referred to above on the basis that Shiloh had been forfeited to the Crown on February 15, 2025. Because of the forfeiture, the Respondent submits that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to grant any remedy as the Appellant is no longer the owner of Shiloh and that the appeals and application are moot.

3The Board accepts the Respondent's argument and finds that it does not have the power to grant the relief requested in Board File Nos. 16667, 16681, or 16683 to return the dog. As a result of this motion decision, the Appellant's two appeals and the Application for Return are dismissed and will not be proceeding to a hearing.

BACKGROUND

4On January 21, 2025, in response to a call from a veterinarian advising that a dog had been dropped off at their clinic in serious condition with multiple stab wounds, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) attended the clinic and removed Shiloh. A Notice of Removal (NOR) was served on the Appellant that same day.

5On January 24, 2025, a Decision to Keep Animal(s) in the CAWI's Care (DTK) was issued, along with a Statement of Account (SOA).

6As mentioned previously, the Appellant appealed both the NOR and DTK, and filed an Application for Return of Shiloh. However, she did not file an appeal of the SOA, which was served using the same email as the DTK.

7A case conference took place on February 5, 2025 to discuss the NOR appeal, and a case conference resumption was scheduled for February 19, 2025, to allow for further settlement discussions and to have the NOR appeal discussed on the same date as the case conference regarding the appeal of the DTK and Application for Return. At the case conference on February 19, 2025, AWS advised the Board that since the SOA had not been paid or appealed in accordance with s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, SO 2019, c 13 (PAWS Act), Shiloh had been forfeited to the Crown in accordance with s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act. The parties agreed that any motion to dismiss would be heard prior to proceeding to a merits hearing.

8February 7, 2025 was the deadline for the Appellant to appeal the SOA to the Board, and February 14, 2025 was the deadline for the Appellant to pay the SOA under the PAWS Act and its regulations. The Appellant neither appealed nor paid the SOA by the respective statutory deadlines.

9On February 21, 2025, the Respondent filed this motion with the Board requesting an order to dismiss the NOR and DTK appeals, as well as the Application for Return.

10The half-day motion hearing proceeded on March 3, 2025.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

Appellant's Absence at the Motion Hearing

11The Appellant did not appear at the hearing at 9:30 a.m. on March 3, 2025.

12The Board confirmed that a Notice of Motion Hearing was sent to the Appellant on or around February 24, 2025. The Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) was also sent to the Appellant on or around February 24, 2025. The Appellant did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss by the date stipulated in the CCRO of February 27, 2025. In fact, after the case conference on February 19, 2025, the Board received no further correspondence from the Appellant.

13The hearing was adjourned until around 10:00 a.m. to allow the Appellant time to contact the Board in case she was running late. The Board attempted to call the Appellant twice during this time, and a further email was sent confirming the videoconference details, but there was no response.

14Section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (SPPA) states that where notice has been provided to a party of a hearing and they do not attend, the Board may proceed in their absence and said party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceedings.

15Given that the Appellant had notice of the motion hearing and chose not to attend, as well as the fact that she did not file any responding materials for the motion despite having notice of this in the CCRO, I decided to proceed with the hearing in her absence.

ISSUE

16The issue on this motion is whether the Board can hear the Appellant's appeals of the NOR and DTK, as well as the Application for Return, given that Shiloh was forfeited to the Crown on February 15, 2025.

IMPACT OF THE FORFEITURE ON APPEALS AND RETURN APPLICATION

17In filing her appeals and Application for Return, it was clear that the Appellant sought the return of the dog. I find that the Board has no authority to order the return of Shiloh as she was forfeited to the Crown, thus rendering the appeal of the NOR, DTK, and the Application for Return moot.

18The Respondent argues, and I agree, that once an animal is forfeited to the Crown by statutory action under s. 35(4), the animal becomes property of the Crown and the Crown is authorized to deal with the animal as if they were the owner (Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782). No action is needed to finalize the process; the forfeiture occurs automatically and the prescribed timelines are important, all of which have passed in this case.

19Based on this, the Respondent requested that the Appeals of the NOR and DTK, as well as the Application for Return, all be dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to return the animal.

20I find that the remedy for the Appeals and Application for Return is predicated on the Appellant still being the owner of the animals. Since she is no longer the owner of the animals, these remedies are not available following forfeiture.

21In a matter where forfeiture occurs because of a failure to appeal or pay a SOA within the statutory deadlines, the Board does not have any further remedy available to it and the Appeals and Application to Return are moot.

ORDER

22The Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.

23The NOR appeal (Board File No. 16667), DTK appeal (Board File No. 16681) and Application for Return (Board File No. 16683) are dismissed and these files are now closed because the Board has no jurisdiction to order Shiloh returned to the Appellant following forfeiture.