Tribunals Ontario Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
Application under subsection 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 R.S.O. 2019, c. 13
Between:
Amylynn Van Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Raymond Ramdayal, Member
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Amylynn Van, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Ke Yi (Kelly) Fan, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: October 23 and 24, 2025
OVERVIEW
1The applicant, Amylynn Van, is the owner of one adult and six puppy bulldogs. The respondent, Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) received a complaint that the animals had been abandoned, which led to their removal on August 29, 2025 pursuant to s. 31(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act).
2Following removal, on September 12, 2025, the respondent issued a Notice of Decision to Keep Animal(s) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care under s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act. On September 16, 2025, AWS issued a Statement of Account (“SOA”) to the applicant, requiring her to pay in $8,695.35 for the cost of boarding. The SOA was not appealed or paid within the statutory time allowance.
3Ms. Van filed an Application for Return of an Animal, dated September 21, 2025. On September 25, 2025, Ms. Van gave written notice of her request that the dogs be returned. Ms. Van’s email was deemed received on September 26, 2025, as she sent it after business hours on September 25th. In her written statements to the Animal Care Review Board (“Board”) in support of her application, Ms. Van expressed that she deeply cares and misses her dogs. She also refuted any allegation that she abandoned the animals and stated that her personal circumstances have improved and her living arrangements now allow her to properly care for them.
4On October 15, 2025, the respondent filed a Notice of Motion requesting that the application before me be dismissed without a hearing on the basis that it is moot. That motion was heard by another adjudicator and denied by the Board on October 21, 2025. The decision stated that the respondent had not provided a Certificate of Service of the SOA to the Board. The Board also issued an Order and Notice of Intention to Dismiss the appeal of the SOA because it appeared that the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal of the SOA may not have been met. There has been no determination of this under Board file number 17824/ACRB.
5I am only considering the applicant’s application to have her animals returned. It is not open to me on an application to review the removal or decision to keep the animals in the Chief Animals Welfare Inspector’s Care.
ISSUE
6The issue to be decided is:
I. Have the conditions that caused the animals to be removed ceased to exist such that they can be returned to the applicant?
RESULT
7For the reasons that follow, I find that the applicant failed to show on a balance of probabilities that the conditions that caused the animals to be removed now cease to exist such that they can be returned. The applicant’s application for return of her animals is denied.
POWERS OF THE BOARD AND THE LAW
8Among other things, section 38(9) of the PAWS Act gives this Board the authority, after a hearing, to:
I. Order that an animal removed under subsection 31(1) or (2), or that was taken in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 31(6) or 44(8), be returned to the owner or custodian.
9On an application for return, the applicant bears the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care have ceased to exist.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Can the animals be returned to the applicant pursuant to the Board’s powers in [s. 38(9)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2019-c-13/latest/so-2019-c-13.html#sec38subsec9_smooth) of the [PAWS Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2019-c-13/latest/so-2019-c-13.html)?
10For the purposes of this application, the Board’s powers are limited to considering whether the conditions that caused the animals to be in distress have ceased to exist such that the animals should be returned to the owner.
11The testimony and evidence received in this matter was carefully weighed to answer this question.
12The events leading up to the removal and subsequent decision to keep the animals in care came at a particularly difficult time in the applicant’s life. In her opening statement, the applicant stated that she was financially strained at the time she came to the attention of the respondent. She stated she was also incarcerated for a short time while everything was going on. The applicant explained that she has been marginally housed for some time and all of her money was being spent towards feeding her dogs. Despite all of this, she insists that the dogs were always well fed, loved and cared for. To support her position, the applicant submitted several photographs and videos which show the animals to be in a happy and healthy state.
13The respondent argued that the applicant is no longer the owner of the dogs since they were forfeited to the Crown on October 9, 2025, after the applicant failed to pay or appeal the SOA that was issued to her. As a result, they state that the remedy the applicant is seeking on this application, i.e., the return of the dogs, is not available to her.
14The nonpayment of the SOA does not come as a surprise to the Board given the applicant’s difficulty in securing basic housing for her and her dogs. The applicant explained that upon being released from police custody she tried looking for new homes for her dogs but was unsuccessful. She acknowledged the difficult situation she was in