Lynn Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 188

Date: 10/28/2025

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

Between:

Lynn Freeman

Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Order Made By: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Lynn Freeman, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Hoursa Yazdi, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: October 8, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Lynn Freeman, the Appellant, is the owner of 12 cats. The cats were removed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on August 14, 2025, pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, SO 2019, c 13 (PAWS Act) as a veterinarian advised that removal was necessary to relieve their distress. The Notice of Removal (NOR) was addressed to both the Appellant and her life partner, Korey McDonough.

2The Appellant appealed the NOR to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on August 20, 2025.

3On September 9, 2025, AWS issued to the Appellant a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $16,731.58 pursuant to s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act for the costs of caring for her cats.

4On September 29, 2025, the Appellant appealed the SOA to the Board, however her appeal was filed beyond the 10 business day appeal period which expired on September 23, 2025. To date, the SOA had not been paid or appealed in accordance with s. 38 of the PAWS Act.

5The appeal of the NOR proceeded to a videoconference hearing on October 8, 2025.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

Adjournment Request

6At the commencement of the hearing on October 8, 2025, the Appellant asked to adjourn the hearing as she did not have time to prepare or retain a lawyer. The Appellant submitted that she had just discovered important information, i.e., the name of the complainant who reported her to AWS and that based on this she was seeking an adjournment.

7The Respondent objected to the adjournment request, noting that at the case conference on September 9, 2025, the parties discussed hearing dates at length and selected a date that was farther out to provide the Appellant with additional time to prepare. They also submitted that the Appellant had appeared before the Board in past appeals and was aware of the notice and disclosure requirements, which she failed to adhere to.

8I was persuaded by the Respondent’s arguments and denied the adjournment request as I was not persuaded that providing the Appellant with additional time to prepare for the hearing would be productive.

9The Appellant had had over one month to prepare for the hearing and could not explain why she had provided no disclosure or retained a lawyer in that time. As well, the Appellant did not persuade me that finding out the identity of the complainant had a bearing on this appeal since the Respondent removed the animals because a veterinarian advised relieving their distress necessitated removal.

10Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 16.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended (Rules), I did not find that there were exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant granting a last-minute oral adjournment request on the day of the hearing.

11The Appellant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing was denied.

Motion to Dismiss

12On October 6, 2025, the Respondent filed a motion seeking an order to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it was moot as there was no available remedy for the Board to grant. The basis for this was that the cats had been forfeited to the Crown on October 1, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4)(a) of the PAWS Act because the Appellant did not:

1. Appeal the SOA within the prescribed time period of 10 business days; and/or
2. Pay the SOA within the prescribed time period of 15 business days.

RESULT

13The Appellant’s appeal of the NOR is dismissed as the cats were forfeited to the Crown on October 1, 2025, and the Board has no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief of returning the cats, thus rendering the appeal moot.

ANALYSIS

14In filing her appeal of the NOR and challenging the validity of the removal, it was clear that the Appellant sought the return of the cats. For the reasons set out below, I find that the Board has no authority to order the return of the cats as they were forfeited to the Crown.

15The Respondent’s motion materials included an affidavit of Inspector Stefanie Mayrl, affirmed on October 2, 2025.

16I accept the Respondent’s affidavit evidence, including that:

(a) The Appellant was served with the SOA on September 9, 2025 and this was established by the certificate of service attached to the affidavit.

(b) The Appellant did not appeal the SOA within the statutory 10-day period, which expired on September 23, 2025.

(c) The Appellant did not pay the SOA within the statutory 15-day period, which expired on September 30, 2025.

(d) The cats were forfeited to the Crown on October 1, 2025.

17The Appellant did not challenge the substance of the Inspector Maryl’s affidavit.

18The Respondent’s submissions regarding statutory forfeiture under the PAWS Act resulting in the cats becoming the property of the Crown include:

i. The Appellant’s cats were forfeited to the Crown on October 1, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act, given that she neither paid nor appealed the SOA by the statutory deadliness; and

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

19The Respondent argues, and I agree, that once an animal is forfeited to the Crown by statutory action 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 finalize the process; the forfeiture occurs automatically and the prescribed timelines are important, all of which have passed in this case.

20Based on this, the Respondent requested that the appeal of the NOR be dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to return the cats.

21I find that the remedy for the appeal of the NOR, i.e., the return of the cats, is predicated on the Appellant still being the owner of the animals. Since she is no longer the owner of the animals, returning the cats is not an available remedy following forfeiture.

22In a matter where forfeiture occurs because of a failure to appeal or pay a SOA within the statutory deadlines, the Board does not have any further remedy available to it and the Appeal is moot.

Conclusion

23I find that the Board has no power to order the return of the cats to the Appellant because they are 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.

24In 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).

25In a matter where 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(s) to a previous owner. Because the Appellant is no longer the owner of the cats, the Board does not have jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought in the appeal of the removal, thus making the appeal moot.

ORDER

26The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the NOR (Board File No. 17575) is granted as the Board has no jurisdiction to order the animals to be returned.

27The file is closed.