Issac Asiedu v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 154

Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: June 13, 2025

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

Between:

Issac Asiedu Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Mark Sraga, Member; Paul Stopciati, Member

For the Appellant: Issac Asiedu, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Aisha Amode, Counsel

Videoconference hearing: April 14, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Issac Asiedu (Appellant) filed an appeal (Appeal) of a Notice of Removal (NOR), Board File No. 16796 with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) concerning his 1.5-year-old male Cane Corso named Panda.

2On April 9, 2025, the Respondent filed a motion with the Board requesting an order to dismiss the appeal of the NOR. The Respondent argues the appeal is moot as the Board has no remedy available to it, as the dog Panda has been forfeited to the Crown on April 2, 2025, due to non-payment of a statement of account (SOA).

3We find that the Board does not have the power to grant the relief requested to return Panda. We grant the Respondent’s motion and the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

4This hearing involves an appeal of a NOR, Board File No. 16796 by the Appellant. The Appellant is the owner of two adult dogs and two puppies, that lived with him in his home in Chatham, Ontario (Property).

5One of the adult dogs is a 1.5-year-old male Cane Corso dog named Panda, which is the subject of this proceeding. The other adult dog is a 1.5-year-old female Cane Corso dog named Violet and the two puppies are 1.5-month-old male Cane Corso dogs (Puppy 1 and Puppy 2).

6On February 14, 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) Inspector Brynne Howell attended the Appellant’s Property in response to a complaint received by AWS. While on the Property, Inspector Howell observed unsanitary conditions including excrement and debris, lack of dry bedding, and a lack of water. As a result of this, he issued various orders pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) on the Appellant for Violet, Puppy 1 and Puppy 2. These orders were not appealed and are not part of this proceeding.

7On February 26, 2025, Inspector Howell conducted a follow up inspection for compliance with the Orders. During that inspection Inspector Howell observed that Panda appeared to have lost a significant amount of weight, appeared very thin and had multiple ribs discernable. As a result of this observation Inspector Howell issued an order dated February 26, 2025, directing the Appellant to have Panda examined by a veterinarian and provide AWS with documentation from the veterinarian with their findings and recommendations by March 2, 2025.

8On March 3, 2025, Inspector Howell conducted a compliance inspection and was informed by the Appellant that he had taken Panda to the veterinarian and was told that Panda was healthy. No documentation was provided to the AWS from the veterinarian to confirm this.

9On March 3, 2025, Inspector Howell contacted the Chatham-Kent Veterinary Hospital and confirmed that Panda had been examined there as per the Appellant’s claim. Panda’s medical records from this examination were emailed to Inspector Howell. The medical records indicated that the Appellant informed the examining veterinarian that Panda had significant weight loss due to a lack of food while Panda had been in the care of the Appellant’s brother. The records also indicated that the veterinarian advised the Appellant that along with weight gain Panda also needed a dewormer, which the Appellant declined.

10On March 4, 2025, Inspector Howell while conducting a compliance inspection determined that Panda was in distress and that the Appellant was in non-compliance with the Orders dated February 26, 2025, and issued a NOR to the Appellant and removed Panda pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act.

11On March 11, 2025, AWS Inspector Howell served a SOA for the amount of $279.07 by email to the Appellant.

12On March 14, 2025, the Appellant appealed the NOR to the Board.

13As there was no appeal of the SOA, payment in full was due on April 1, 2025.

14Since the Appellant did not appeal the SOA by the statutory deadline, the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the NOR Appeal on the basis that Panda has been forfeited to the Crown as of April 2, 2025.

15The motion hearing proceeded at the commencement of the videoconference hearing on April 14, 2025.

ISSUES

16The issue on this motion is whether the Board can hear the Appellant’s appeal of the Order given that Panda was forfeited to the Crown on April 2, 2025.

RESULT

IMPACT OF THE FOREFEITURE ON APPEAL

17We find that the appeal of the NOR is moot as Panda was forfeited to the Crown as of April 2, 2025, and there is no further remedy available at law that the Board could order.

18Under the PAWS Act and its regulation, Ontario Regulation 447/19, 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:

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

b. Pay it within 15 business days.

19The Appellant argues that service of the SOA via email is not proper service; therefore, the Respondent’s motion should be dismissed as the SOA was not properly served. We note that the Appellant did not appeal the SOA, so the only relevance of this argument would be in relation to the forfeiture of the animal. The Appellant further argues that the Board is not “powerless” and that the Board’s jurisdiction remains intact. The Appellant relies on s. 38(1) of the PAWS Act to support their argument that the Board has jurisdiction in matters involving removal of animals.

20The powers of the Board are set out in s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act. Under paragraph (2) of that subsection, the Board can order that an animal that has been removed under s. 31(1) or (2) or taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under 31(6), or 44(8) be returned to the owner or custodian. However, in matters where the animal has been forfeited to the Crown, the Board does not have jurisdiction and, in this matter, Panda has been forfeited due to non-payment of the SOA.

21The Respondent argues, and we agree, that once an animal is forfeited to the Crown by operation of statute 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 engage this process; the forfeiture occurs automatically by operation of statute, and the Board is not able to waive, stay or amend the prescribed timeframes, all of which have passed in this matter.

22In addition, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that once an animal has been forfeited, “it is not possible to make an order unwinding this development” (Windrift Aventures Inc. v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board, 2024 ONCA 89).

23We accept the Respondent’s argument that the Board cannot return an animal to an appellant once the animal has been statutorily forfeited.

24Based on this, the Respondent requested that the NOR appeal be dismissed due to the forfeiture of Panda and the Board having no jurisdiction to return Panda.

25We find that Panda has been forfeited because of a failure to appeal or pay a SOA within the statutory deadlines and there is no remedy available to the Board. Accordingly, the appeal of the NOR is moot.

ORDER

26The Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

27The NOR appeal (Board File No. 16796) is dismissed, and this file is now closed as the Board has no jurisdiction to order Panda be returned to the Appellant following forfeiture.