Joshua LaPointe v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 175

Tribunals ontario Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2025-08-26

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

Between:

Joshua LaPointe

Applicant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Debra Backstein, Member

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Joshua LaPointe, Self-represented For the Respondent: Hoursa Yazdi, Counsel

Heard in writing: August 15, 2025

BACKGROUND

1Joshua LaPointe, the Applicant, filed an Application for Return of Animals with the Animal Care Review Board (Board). The Applicant sought the return of 37 Boston Terrier type dogs (the dogs) that were removed from his care and kept in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector in late 2024.

2On July 31, 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Respondent, filed a motion seeking an order dismissing the Application for Return on the ground that the appeal is moot. The basis for this was that the dogs had been forfeited to the Crown by June 10, 2025 pursuant to s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act).

3Specifically, the Respondent sets out the following in its affidavit evidence on this motion:

1. On May 15, 2025, the Board released a decision and order pertaining to an appeal by the Applicant of a Statement of Account dated December 11, 2024 (SOA #1), in the amount of $40,302.09. The decision varied SOA #1 to $5,515.80.
2. As a result of this decision, the Applicant was ordered to pay SOA #1 to the Minister of Finance within 15 days of the date of the decision, being June 6, 2025, pursuant to s.1(2) of Ministerial Prescriptions, O Reg 447/19.
3. On May 16, 2025, the Board released another decision pertaining to an appeal by the Applicant of a Statement of Account dated December 9, 2025 (SOA #2) in the amount of $3,285.64. That decision varied SOA#2 to $405.00 and was to be paid by June 9, 2025 pursuant to 1(2) of Ministerial Prescriptions, O Reg 447/19.
4. The Applicant did not pay either SOA #1 or SOA #2.
5. Since no payment was made for SOA#1 or SOA#2, the dogs were forfeited by June 10, 2025.

The Respondent’s position

4The Respondent submits that the motion should be granted because the Board cannot grant the remedy of the return of the dogs to the Applicant because the Applicant is no longer their owner.

5The Respondent’s written submissions supporting the motion include:

1. Factual background, which was supported by a sworn affidavit of Regional Supervisor Joshua Matson;
2. Submissions regarding statutory forfeiture under the PAWS Act resulting in the dogs becoming the property of the Crown: i. The dogs were forfeited to the Crown by June 10, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4)(a) of the PAWS Act, given that the Applicant failed to pay SOA #1 and SOA #2 within the prescribed time period of 15 business days from the Board’s decisions to vary those accounts. ii. Forfeiture occurs by statutory action and is not subject to any action taken by the Crown or the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (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 CAWI is then authorized to deal with the animals as if the CAWI were the owner. The CAWI can then transfer ownership of animals or sell the animals to another owner who then assumes responsibility and care for the animals. iii. The dispute over the return of the animal disappears on forfeiture and the Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of an animal once it has been forfeited.

The Applicant’s position

6The Applicant did not file any submissions responding to the motion.

ANALYSIS

7I find that the Board does not have the power to order the return of the dogs to the Applicant as they are the property of the Crown.

8In the Divisional Court’s decision in Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782, the court states that a person’s legal status as an owner changes when the animal is forfeited to the Crown and that under s. 63(1) of the PAWS Act, the CAWI is authorized to deal with the animal as if the CAWI were the owner.

9Further, the Ontario Court of Appeal case of Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board), 2024 ONCA 89, explains that once an animal is forfeited “it is not possible to make an order unwinding this development”.

10In the current circumstances, the Board does not have the power to order the return of the dogs to a previous owner following the forfeiture that took place due to the Applicant failing to pay SOA #1 and SOA #2. The forfeiture ended the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the Application for Return and there is no remedy available to the Board.

11The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Application for Return is granted and the Board will not address the merits of the application.

ORDER

12The Application for Return is dismissed.

13The dates for the written hearing on the merits of the application is vacated.

14File 17153/ACRB is now closed and no further events will be scheduled.