Application under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Leslie White
Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
For the parties
Applicant: Leslie White, Self-Represented
Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel
Held in writing: August 14, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Leslie White, the Applicant, has filed an application with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) seeking the return of her dog Rocco (Application). Rocco was removed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on April 10, 2025.
2On April 10, 2025, Rocco was removed from the Appellant’s care by AWS Inspector Kat MacDonald (Inspector), pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act) for non-compliance with an order issued to the Applicant on March 15, 2025. The order required Rocco to be examined and treated by a veterinarian by March 21, 2025. Records from the veterinarian were to be provided to the Inspector by April 1, 2025. The Inspector later extended the compliance date for the veterinarian examination to March 25, 2025.
3On April 23, 2025, Regional Supervisor Victory Crocker, as Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Delegate (CAWI), the Respondent, issued a Decision to Keep in Care (DTK) pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act regarding Rocco.
4On April 29, 2025, the Inspector issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to the Applicant in the amount of $1,943.67, pursuant to s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act for the costs of caring for Rocco.
5The Applicant did not appeal the order, the removal, or the (DTK) to the Board.
6On July 7, 2025, the Applicant appealed the SOA to the Board; however, her appeal was not processed as it was filed beyond the 10-business day appeal period which expired on May 13, 2025.
7Also on July 7, 2025, the Applicant emailed the Board, requesting the return of Rocco (Application). This Application was accepted by the Board.
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
8On July 18, 2025, the Respondent filed a motion seeking an order to dismiss the Application on the grounds that the application was moot as there is no available remedy. The basis for this was that Rocco had been forfeited to the Crown on May 22, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4)(a) of the PAWS Act because the Applicant did not:
- Appeal the SOA issued to her on April 29, 2025, within 10 business days of being served with the SOA; and/or
- Pay the SOA within 15 business days of being served with the SOA.
9The Board scheduled a written motion hearing for August 14, 2025. The Applicant was invited to file responding written submissions by August 6, 2025, but while she sent three emails on that date, none of them contained evidence or submissions that responded to this motion. The first email was a lengthy explanation of how Rocco might have gotten out of her apartment. The second email apologized for any words not correctly captured in the first, because she created it using “talk to text.” The third email explains why she didn’t have Rocco seen by a veterinarian, which was what the Order required.
RESULT
10The Application for the return of Rocco is dismissed, as the dog was forfeited to the Crown on May 22, 2025, and the Board has no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
ANALYSIS
11The Respondent’s evidence on the motion included an affidavit of Regional Supervisor Victoria Crocker.
12I considered and ultimately accepted the unchallenged affidavit evidence, which established the following:
- The Applicant was served with the SOA on April 29, 2025, as shown in the certificate of service.
- The Applicant did not appeal the SOA within 10 days of being served, which was May 13, 2025.
- The Applicant did not pay the SOA within the 15 days of being served, which was May 21, 2025.
- Rocco was forfeited to the Crown on May 22, 2025.
13In finding that Rocco was forfeited and became the property of the Crown, I accept the Respondent’s submissions which include:
- Rocco was forfeited to the Crown on May 22, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act, given that the Applicant did not appeal or pay the SOA within the statutory deadlines; and
- Forfeiture occurs by statutory action and is not subject to any action taken, or decision made, by the Crown or the CAWI to initiate or finalize the forfeiture process. Once an animal has been forfeited to the Crown, it becomes the property of the Crown, and the previous owner/custodian ceases to have any rights of ownership or possession over the animals. Section 63(1) of the PAWS Act provides that the Respondent is then authorized by the Crown to “deal with the animals as if the CAWI were the owner.” The Board has no jurisdiction with respect to forfeiture.
14I find that the Board has no power to order the return of Rocco to the Applicant because he is now property of the Crown. The legal implication of forfeiture is stated in the Divisional Court’s decision in Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 (para. 9), 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, the CAWI is authorized to deal with an animal as if the CAWI were the owner.
15In 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 Adventures Inc. v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board), 2024 ONCA 89).
16In a matter where there was no appeal of the removal, the DTK, or of the SOA (within the legislated timeframe), and forfeiture occurred as a result of non-payment of a SOA, the Board does not have the power to order the return of an animal to a previous owner.
17Because Rocco was forfeited on May 22, 2025, the Applicant was not the owner when the s. 38(4) application was filed on July 7, 2025, the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the application.
18While the Respondent’s motion asked that the Application be dismissed because it is moot, its submissions1 do not address mootness. My finding that the Board lacks jurisdiction is consistent with the Respondent’s submissions on this point.
ORDER
19The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Application is granted.
20The Application for the return of Rocco is dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to order his return to the Applicant.
21The file is closed.
Released: September 11, 2025
_________________________
Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair