Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 04/10/2025

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

Between:

Ashley Aulenback Appellant / Applicant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Order Made By: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant / Applicant: Ashley Aulenback, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Daniel Meuleman, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: March 31, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Ashley Aulenback (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal for a Notice of Removal (NOR), Board File No. 16652, and an Application for Revocation of an Order or Return of an Animal, (Application for Return) Board File No. 16669, with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) concerning her 3-year-old mastiff mix dog named Lola.

2On March 4, 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) brought a motion to dismiss the NOR Appeal and Application for Return referred to above on the basis that Lola had been forfeited to the Crown on February 8, 2025, and her ten puppies were forfeited on February 21, 2025. Because of the forfeiture, the Respondent submits that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to grant any remedy as the Appellant no longer owns Lola, and the matters are both 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. 16652 or 16669 to return the dogs. As a result of this motion decision, the Appellant’s NOR Appeal and the Application for Return are dismissed and will not be proceeding to a hearing.

BACKGROUND

4On January 3, 2025, the Appellant contacted Animal Welfare Service (AWS) and spoke to Inspector Savannah Kort about concerns she had for her dog Lola who was in active labor.

5Some time passed and on January 14, 2025, the Appellant reached out to AWS again stating that there had been a dog fight and Lola and another dog had been injured. Inspector Kort then served the Appellant with an Order to seek veterinary care for Lola by 5:00 p.m. that same day.

6On January 14 and 15, 2025, Inspector Kort contacted the Animal Hospital of Windsor (AHW) and spoke to veterinarian Dr. Khanyeyev, who advised that Lola appeared to be in pain during the visit with a possible broken leg from the dog fight, and he was also concerned for the puppies she was carrying. However, he stated that the Appellant had declined his recommendations to proceed with x-rays, an ultrasound, etc. due to financial constraints.

7On January 15, 2025, Inspector Kort contacted the Walker Road Animal Hospital (WRAH) after the Appellant consented, and she spoke to Dr. Horseman, who had similar concerns to Dr. Khanyeyev and stated that without an x-ray they were not able to tell if Lola’s leg was broken. Dr. Horseman subsequently signed a veterinary certificate recommending removal.

8Later that day, Inspector Kort attended the Appellant’s residence in Windsor, Ontario and removed Lola pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, SO 2019, c 13 (PAWS Act). The NOR was served on the Appellant on January 15, 2025.

9Lola was taken for immediate medical attention and on or around January 16, 2025, Lola gave birth to ten puppies while in AWS’ care.

10On January 17, 2025, AWS served the Appellant with a Statement of Account (SOA #1), under s. 35 of the PAWS Act, for the veterinary care costs of Lola between January 15-17, 2025.

11On January 22, 2025, a decision was made to keep Lola and the ten puppies in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector and a Notice of Decision to Keep Animal(s) in Care (DTK) was issued to the Appellant. No appeal of the DTK was received, but the Appellant filed an Application for Return for Lola and her puppies under s.38(4) of the PAWS Act as stated above.

12On January 29, 2025, a second Statement of Account (SOA #2) was issued under s. 35 of the PAWS Act to cover the costs of boarding for Lola and her ten puppies between January 16-27, 2025.

13As there was no appeal of SOA#1, and payment in full was due on February 7, 2025. Similarly, there was no appeal of SOA #2, therefore, payment was due on February 20, 2025.

14As there was no appeal of the Statement of Accounts by the respective statutory deadlines, noted below, the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the NOR Appeal and Application for Return on the basis that Lola and her ten puppies had been forfeited to the Crown, respectively, as of February 8 and February 21, 2025.

15The half-day motion hearing proceeded at the commencement of the videoconference hearing on March 31, 2025.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE - RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL

16The issue on this motion is whether the Board can hear the Appellant’s NOR Appeal and Application for Return given that Lola and her puppies were forfeited to the Crown.

RESULT

17I grant the Respondent’s motion. The Appellant’s NOR Appeal and Application for Return are dismissed and will not proceed to a hearing.

IMPACT OF THE FORFEITURE ON NOR APPEAL AND RETURN APPLICATION

18In filing the NOR Appeal and Application for Return, it was clear that the Appellant sought the return of her dogs. However, I find that the Board has no authority to order the return of Lola or her puppies as they were forfeited to the Crown, thus rendering the NOR Appeal and Application for Return moot.

19Under the PAWS Act and its regulation, Ontario Regulation 447/19, forfeiture of an animal to the Crown may occur automatically if the owner or custodian of an animal does not take one of two actions after being served with a SOA:

a. appeal it to the Board within 10 business days, or

b. pay it within 15 business days.

20The Respondent argues, and I agree, that once an animal is forfeited to the Crown by statutory action under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act, 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.

21Based on this, the Respondent requested that the NOR Appeal and Application for Return be dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to return the animals.

22I find that the remedies for the NOR Appeal and Application for Return are predicated on the Appellant still being the owner of the animals. Since the Appellant is no longer the owner of the animals, these remedies are not available following forfeiture.

23In 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; therefore, the NOR Appeal and Application to Return are dismissed.

ORDER

24The Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

25The NOR Appeal and Application for Return, Board File No. 16652 and Board File No. 16669 respectively, are therefore dismissed, and these files are now closed as the Board has no jurisdiction to order that the animals be returned to the Appellant following forfeiture.