TRIBUNALS ONTARIO
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Application under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019,
c. 13.
Between:
Tracy Swift
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Applicant
Respondent
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Rocco Iamello, Member
Appearances
For the Applicant: Tracy Swift, did not attend
For the Respondent: Ke Yi Fan, Counsel
Held by Videoconference: October 15, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Tracey Swift, the Applicant, filed one application via email with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) to revoke an order and is seeking the return of her 5 dogs and 1 cat (Application) on August 16, 2025.
2All animals were removed by the Respondent, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on May 28, 2025, pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), on the basis of the Applicant’s non-compliance with an order issued by AWS to the Applicant on May 21, 2025.
3The order required the applicant to provide adequate and appropriate food for all animals in the residence, provide clean drinking water in appropriate quantities for all animals in the residence at all times, provide clean and dry sleeping areas for all the animals, provide a clean living area, and to provide a space that allows for free movement without hazards, including feces and urine.
4On May 22, 2025, the Respondent revoked portions of the order dated May 21, 2025 and replaced the order with further actions to be in compliance by May 27, 2025.
5On June 18, 2025, the Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI)issued a Decision to Keep the Animals in Care (DTK) pursuant to s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
6On June 19, 2025, AWS issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to the Applicant in the amount of $6,730, pursuant to s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act for the costs of care and boarding of the animals that were removed.
7The Applicant did not appeal the order, the removal, the DTK or the SOA to the Board.
8On July 12, 2025, the animals were forfeited to the Crown, as the Applicant had not paid the SOA by the statutory deadline.
9On August 16, 2025, the Applicant emailed the Board requesting that the order be revoked and the animals returned to her.
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
10On September 12, 2025, the Respondent filed a motion seeking an order to dismiss the Application on the grounds that the Board does not have jurisdiction and the Application was moot, as there is no available remedy. The basis for this was that the animals had been forfeited to the Crown on July 12, 2025, pursuant to s. 35(4)(a) of the PAWS Act because the Applicant did not:
Appeal the SOA issued to her on June 19, 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.
11The Board scheduled the motion to be heard on October 15, 2025, prior to the commencement of the hearing. The Applicant was not in attendance to respond to the motion and did not file a written response with the Board.
12The Board made a reasonable attempt to contact the Applicant for the hearing on October 15, 2025.
13The Board continued the hearing and heard the motion as per SPPA 7. (1) Where notice of an oral hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with this Act and the party does not attend at the hearing, the tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 7; 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (14).
RESULT
14The Application for the return of the animals is dismissed, as they were forfeited to the Crown on July 12, 2025, and the Board has no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. The order was previously revoked and replaced by the Applicant.
ANALYSIS
15In deciding to dismiss the application, I considered the Respondent’s unchallenged affidavit evidence on the motion, which established the following:
1The Applicant was served with the SOA on June 19, 2025, as shown in the certificate of service attached to AWS Inspector Blakeborough’s affidavit.
2The Applicant did not appeal the SOA within 10 days of being served;
3The Applicant did not pay the SOA within 15 days of being served; and
4The animals were forfeited to the Crown on July 12, 2025.
16In finding that the animals were forfeited and became the property of the Crown, I accept the Respondent’s submissions that:
1The animals were forfeited to the Crown on July 12, 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
2Forfeiture 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.
17I find that the Board has no power to order the return of the animals to the Applicant because they are now the 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.
18In addition, the Ontario Court of Appeal has stated 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).
19In 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 the SOA, the Board does not have the power to order the return of an animal to a previous owner.
20Because the animals were forfeited on July 12, 2025, the Applicant was not the owner when the s. 38(4) application was filed on August 16, 2025, and the Board does not have jurisdiction to grant the remedy requested in the application.
21The Applicant previously revoked and replaced the order.
22While the Respondent’s motion asked that the Application be dismissed because it is moot, my finding is that the Board lacks jurisdiction is consistent with the Respondent’s submissions on this point.
23The animals have been forfeited; therefore, the Board cannot return them to the Applicant and there are no available remedies.
24While the Board could hear a moot matter on a discretionary basis, since the Applicant did not respond to the motion, there is no submission before me that would support the exercise of that jurisdiction.
ORDER
25The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Application is granted.
26The Application for the return of the animals and to revoke the order is dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of the animals to the Applicant and revoke the order.
27The file is closed.
Released: November 03, 2025