Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: August 25, 2025

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

Between:

Descyara McMurray Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Mark Sraga, Member

For the Appellant: Descyara McMurray, Self-represented For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel

Videoconference hearing: June 26, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Descyara McMurray (Appellant) has two appeals before the Animal Care Review Board (Board): Board File 16972/ACRB involving a Decision to Keep (DTK), and Board File 16973/ACRB involving a Statement of Account dated April 14, 2025 (SOA #1). Animal Welfare Services (AWS) had previously removed three horses from the Appellant’s care. It had later decided to keep the horses in its care and issued SOA #1 requiring the Appellant to pay for some of that care.

2On June 17, 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) filed a motion with the Board requesting:

a. An order dismissing the appeal of SOA #1; and

b. An order dismissing the appeal of the DTK.

3The Respondent argues that the appeal of SOA #1 should be dismissed as it is incomplete and was not made in accordance with the statutory requirements set out in s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act). Specifically, it argues that the Appellant provided no “notice in writing” to the Board.

4The Respondent also argues that since SOA #1 was not appealed or paid within the prescribed time period, the three horses (that were subject of the DTK) were forfeited to the Crown as of May 2, 2025 and the Board has no authority to order their return as a remedy on the appeal of the DTK and the appeal is moot.

5The Respondent further argues that even if the Board determines that SOA #1 was properly appealed, the horses were forfeited on June 14, 2025, for non-payment of a second statement of account dated May 23, 2025 (SOA #2). Therefore, the Board again has no authority to order the horses’ return as a remedy on the appeal of the DTK and the appeal is moot.

6Following a motion hearing, I granted the Respondent’s motion, with written reasons to follow. The reasons are set out below.

ISSUES

7The issues on this motion are:

a. Did the Appellant submit an appeal of SOA #1 in accordance with s. 38(5) of the PAWS Act?

b. Is the appeal of the DTK moot? Is so, should the Board exercise its discretion to hear the appeal?

RESULT

8The motion is granted. The Appellant’s appeals of SOA #1 and the DTK are dismissed.

BACKGROUND

9On March 27, 2025, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) removed three horses owned by the Appellant from her property in Campbellford, Ontario pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act, citing non-compliance with an order. AWS issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) under s. 31(5) of the PAWS Act, which was not appealed and is not part of this proceeding.

10On April 4, 2025, AWS issued a DTK pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act to the Appellant for the horses.

11On April 8, 2025, the Respondent issued SOA #1 requiring the Appellant to pay for transportation, boarding and veterinary care costs related to the horses. SOA #1 reflected $2,375.65 in total costs and was issued pursuant to s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act.

12On April 14, 2025, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) with the Board. Included with this NOA was a copy of the DTK dated April 4, 2025, and a copy of SOA #1 dated April 8, 2025.

13On April 16, 2025, at 4:27 p.m. the Board emailed the parties advising them that the Board had received an appeal of the DTK and assigned Board File 16972/ACRB for this matter.

14On April 16, 2025, at 4:35 p.m. the Board again emailed the parties advising them that the Board had received an appeal but that it was incomplete and missing a “completed Notice of Appeal form”. It assigned Board File 19673/ACRB to this matter. The Board further noted that if the form was not provided to the Board by April 22, 2025, the Board may decide not to process the appeal.

15On April 23, 2025, the Respondent emailed the Appellant informing them that if they do not provide the information requested by the Board as indicated in the April 16, 2025 email, payment of the full amount contained in SOA #1 was due on May 1, 2025. The Respondent further noted that if the Appellant did not appeal or pay SOA #1 within the timelines, then the horses would be forfeited to the Crown.

16On May 15, 2025, the Board sent an email to the parties advising them that for Board File 19673/ACRB, the Board had received a notice in writing regarding SOA #1 and that the Appellant was required to provide a completed Notice of Appeal form and/or a completed Notice of Application form to the Board and Respondent by May 20, 2025.

17On May 23, 2025, AWS Inspector Delahaye emailed a letter to the Appellant informing them that the horses have been forfeited to the Crown as of May 2, 2025, due to non-payment of SOA #1.

18On May 23, 2025, a second statement of account (SOA #2) in the amount of $2,764.20 was issued to the Appellant for additional costs incurred in the care and boarding of the horses.

ANALYSIS

Did the Appellant submit a valid appeal of SOA #1?

19I find that the Appellant did not submit an appeal of SOA #1 in compliance with the statutory provisions of s. 38(5) of the PAWS Act and as a result I dismiss the appeal of SOA #1 (Board File 16973/ACRB) for the following reasons.

20The Respondent argues that there was no appeal of SOA #1 submitted by the Appellant to the Board and that the only notice of appeal submitted to the Board related to the appeal of the DTK (Board File 16972/ACRB).

21The Respondent further argues that even if the Board was to find that an appeal of SOA #1 had been submitted by the Appellant, the Appellant did not submit the appeal in accordance with the statutory requirements set out in s. 38 of the PAWS Act and the appeal should be dismissed as a result.

22The Respondent also argues that Section 38(2) of the PAWS Act requires that an appeal of an SOA must be made in writing. In addition, s. 38(5) requires that the appeal must include the remedy or action sought and the grounds for the appeal.

23The NOA submitted by the Appellant on April 14, 2025 did not contain any of the required information as stated in s. 38(5) of the PAWS Act with respect to SOA #1.

24The Respondent further argues that it would be procedurally unfair to proceed with a hearing of the appeal of SOA #1 due to the Respondent not knowing the reasons for the appeal or the remedy being sought.

25The Appellant stated that they did not intend to appeal the SOA. They explained that it was not clear what documents they needed to provide when they submitted the NOA and so they included the SOA along with the DTK that they had received from AWS. They also confirmed during the hearing that they were not disputing the costs contained in SOA #1.

26The Appellant further stated that they were prepared and willing to pay the amount contained in SOA #1.

27Given the Appellant’s explanation that they did not intend to appeal SOA #1, there is no dispute to be resolved regarding SOA #1. I therefore dismiss the appeal related to SOA #1 (Board File 16973/ACRB).

Impact of the forfeiture on the DTK appeal.

28For the reasons that follow, I find that the appeal of the DTK is moot as the horses were forfeited to the Crown as of May 2, 2025, and there is no further remedy available at law that the Board could order.

29Under the PAWS Act and 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 statement of account:

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

b. Pay it within 15 business days.

30The 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 taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under 31(6), as was the case here, 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 to return the animal and, in this matter, the horses have been forfeited due to non-payment of SOA #1.

31The Respondent argues, and I 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.

32In 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).

33I accept the Respondent’s argument that the Board cannot return an animal to an appellant once the animal has been statutorily forfeited and that the appeal of the DTK is moot.

Is the appeal of the Decision to Keep moot? If so, should the Board exercise its discretion to hear the appeal?

34To determine if the matter is moot, I applied a two-step analysis as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in (Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 at 353):

a. Step 1: Determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared rendering the issues academic.

b. Step 2: Even if the first question is answered affirmatively, and the matter is moot, the [Board] then decides where to exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal.

35In terms of step 1, I was convinced by the Respondents argument that the appeal is moot because the horses were forfeited as of May 2, 2025, and any live issue or dispute expired on that date.

36Moving to step 2, neither party argued that there were any circumstances that would warrant hearing the appeal of the DTK. I am also persuaded by the Respondents submissions that the Board should not exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal of the DTK because the Board has consistently dismissed appeals of removal decisions and keep in care decisions, and applications for return as moot when the animal has been forfeited.

37I have also considered the following three factors in determining whether there are circumstances that would warrant the Board exercising its discretion to hear the appeal of the DTK even though it is moot. They are:

a. The presence of an adversarial context;

b. The concern for judicial economy; and

c. The need for the Board to be sensitive to its role as the “adjudicative branch” in our political framework.

38I find that there is no longer an adversarial context present in this matter due to this matter having been found to be moot and as a result is no longer live. The Appellant did not make any submissions stating there was one.

39In respect of the concern for judicial economy, I have taken into consideration that neither party identified nor raised circumstances that would justify the Board expending its limited resources to hear the appeal of the DTK along with the fact that regardless of any findings I might make on the appeal, I do not have the authority to order the return of the Appellant’s horses.

40Regarding the need for the Board to be sensitive to its role as the “adjudicative branch,” there were no submissions from either party in relation to this factor. I note that the Board’s role is not to intrude on statutory mechanisms, but to resolve disputes and adjudicate live issues. A moot appeal does not allow me to exercise the powers of the Board under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act.

41Based on my consideration of the factors set out above, I conclude that there are no circumstances that would justify the Board exercising its discretion to hear the moot appeal of the DTK.

42Accordingly, the appeal of the DTK is dismissed as it is moot due to the forfeiture of the horses and the Board having no jurisdiction to return them.

ORDER

43The Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

44The appeals in Board Files 16972 and 16973/ACRB are now closed.

Released: August 25, 2025

______________________

Mark Sraga, Member