Tribunals Ontario / Animal Care Review Board
Application under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Robert Coad Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Anxhela (Angela) Peco, Vice-Chair
For the Applicant: Robert Coad, Self-represented For the Respondent: Yun (Alice) Liu, Counsel
Held in writing
OVERVIEW
1The Applicant, Robert Coad, filed an application seeking the return of 110 cats that Animal Welfare Services (AWS) removed from his residence in April 2025.
2In July 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) brought a motion asking the Animal Care Review Board (Board) to dismiss Mr. Coad’s application because the cats have been forfeited to the Crown. Because of the forfeiture, the Respondent submits that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order the return of the cats as Mr. Coad is no longer their owner, and that his application is therefore moot.
3Mr. Coad opposes the motion and argues that he remains the cats’ owner and is entitled to their return.
ISSUES
4Does the Board have jurisdiction to decide Mr. Coad’s application for return and is the application moot?
5If the application is moot, should the Board exercise its discretion to hear the moot application?
RESULT
6The Board grants the Respondent’s motion. Mr. Coad ceased to have any rights of ownership or possession over the cats due to the forfeiture that occurred in May 2025. As a result, the Board does not have the power to order the return of the animals to him. The Board also declines to hear the moot application. As a result of this motion decision, Mr. Coad’s application is dismissed and will not be proceeding to a merits hearing.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
7The motion to dismiss the application was scheduled to be heard at the start of the merits hearing of the application, set for August 12, 2025. However, the August 12th hearing did not proceed due to technical difficulties with the Zoom teleconference line.
8I issued an order on August 21, 2025, rescheduling the hearing to September 3, 2025, so that it could take place immediately following the completion of the hearing in another matter involving the same parties. Again, the hearing did not proceed on September 3, 2025, because Mr. Coad was disconnected from the teleconference early in the day and did not rejoin by the time the Board adjourned later that afternoon.
9Mr. Coad attended each appearance from a detention center and had limited access to a phone. From time to time, a social worker assisted Mr. Coad by sending and receiving documents to the Board and the Respondent on Mr. Coad’s behalf. Taking these circumstances into account, and to avoid further delay, I issued an order on September 4, 2025 adjourning the hearing and ordering the motion to proceed in writing. The Respondent had already filed their evidence and submissions on the motion. Mr. Coad had filed handwritten materials containing his response to the motion. Since the parties would be limited to their written materials when the matter was converted to writing, I invited Mr. Coad to file any additional evidence or submissions on the motion by September 11, 2025, with the assistance of his social worker. The Respondent was given until September 16, 2025 to file a reply. The Board received no additional evidence or submissions by these dates.
EVENTS LEADING TO THE REMOVAL AND FORFEITURE OF THE CATS
10The Respondent’s evidence shows that AWS removed a total of 110 cats from Mr. Coad’s property on several dates in April 2025. Notices of Removal issued to Mr. Coad indicate that:
On April 18, 2025, AWS Inspector Basil Thomas removed three cats pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), citing non-compliance with an order issued to Mr. Coad under s. 30.
On April 23, 2025, AWS removed one