Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2025-08-15

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

Between:

Mark Ashley

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Mark Ashley, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Konstantina Chantzis, Counsel

Held in writing

OVERVIEW

1Mark Ashley has an appeal pending before the Animal Care Review Board (Board). He is challenging Animal Welfare Services’ (AWS) decision to remove a dog named Able from his care in May 2025 and is seeking the return of the dog.

2On June 26, 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought a motion asking the Board to dismiss Mr. Ashley’s appeal because the dog was forfeited to the Crown earlier that month. Because of the forfeiture, CAWI submits that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order the return of the dog as Mr. Ashley is no longer the owner, and that his appeal is therefore moot.

3The Board grants CAWI’s motion. Since Mr. Ashley is no longer the dog’s owner due to the forfeiture that occurred in June 2025, the Board does not have the power to order the return of the animal to him. As a result of this motion decision, Mr. Ashley’s appeal is dismissed and will not be proceeding to a merits hearing.

REMOVAL AND FORFEITURE OF THE DOG

4On May 8, 2025, AWS inspectors removed a male German Shepherd-type dog named Able from Mr. Ashley’s care after he was arrested and held at a local police station. Mr. Ashley had brought the dog with him to the police station at the time of his arrest.

5AWS issued Mr. Ashley a Notice of Removal. The document indicated that the dog was removed pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act). This provision authorizes inspectors to remove an animal when a veterinarian has advised them in writing that removal is necessary to relieve an animal’s distress. The document noted that the dog’s owner was charged by police for abuse on the dog, and there was no owner present to provide necessities. The dog was later kept in CAWI’s care.

6On May 23, 2025, AWS issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to Mr. Ashley, requiring him to pay veterinary costs associated with the dog’s care.

7It is not in dispute that Mr. Ashley did not appeal or pay the SOA within the timelines set out in s. 1(1) and s. 3 of Ontario Regulation 447/19, made under the PAWS Act. These timelines require an appeal of a statement of account to be filed 10 business days from the date of service or payment to be made 15 business days from the date of service.

8The SOA was sent by regular mail to Mr. Ashley’s home address on the same day it was issued, and it was deemed to be served on May 30, 2025, the seventh day after it was mailed (Ontario Regulation 316/23). Mr. Ashley therefore had until June 13 to appeal the SOA and until June 20 to pay it. Because he neither appealed nor paid the SOA, the dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown on June 21, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4)(a) of the PAWS Act.

IMPACT OF FORFEITURE ON THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL

9For the reasons that follow, I find that the Board has no remedy available on the appeal of the decision to remove the dog.

10Mr. Ashley makes a number of submissions on this motion that focus almost entirely on challenging the removal, challenging the validity of the criminal charges against him, which he says were withdrawn, and explaining why the dog should be returned to him.

11Mr. Ashley denies harming the dog and describes the physical and emotional impact the removal of the dog has had on him. He states that he attempted to pay the SOA even though he does not believe he should be responsible for costs because his dog was taken illegally. Mr. Ashley also makes unsupported allegations of bias against the Board and accuses the Board of conspiring with his family member.

12Although I appreciate that Mr. Ashley finds himself in a difficult position, I am unable to rely on his various submissions because they are either not relevant to the issues raised on this motion or they are unsupported by evidence.

13My analysis is guided by s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, which sets out the Board’s powers. Specifically, section 38(9)2 provides that following a hearing, the Board may order that an animal removed under subsection 31(1) – as was the case here – be returned to the owner.

14However, the Board no longer has the jurisdiction to grant that remedy to Mr. Ashley because he is no longer the dog’s owner. CAWI argues, and I agree, that once forfeiture occurred on June 21, 2025, the dog became the property of the Crown and Mr. Ashley ceased to have any rights of ownership or possession over the dog.

15This 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 an animal is forfeited to the Crown and that under s. 63(1) of the PAWS Act, CAWI is then authorized to deal with the animal as if CAWI were the owner.

16The purpose behind the provisions that make forfeiture automatic when a statement of account is not paid or appealed on time is to stop ongoing costs of care to the Crown. This is achieved by allowing CAWI to transfer ownership of the animal to another suitable owner who then assumes responsibility for its care.

17In the context of this case, forfeiture also means that the Board is left without a remedy and cannot order what Mr. Ashley seeks.

ORDER

18CAWI’s motion is granted. The appeal of the decision to remove the dog is dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of the dog to Mr. Ashley.