Appeal and application under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Zohaib Masood
Appellant/Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Tassia Poynter, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant/Applicant: Zohaib Masood, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Bailey Wintermute, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services
Jessica Holroyd, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: January 5 and 7, 2026
INTRODUCTION
1This matter concerns an appeal and an application brought by Zohaib Masood (Appellant) in relation to a four-month-old male white tiger cub named Atlas and a 10-month-old male spotted hyena named Marilyn (the animals).
2In November 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) removed the animals from the Appellant’s property and decided to keep them in its care because of what it characterizes as the Appellant’s ongoing noncompliance with the standards of care for captive wildlife under the relevant regulations.
3The Appellant appealed the decision to keep the animals in the Respondent’s care (DTK) to the Animal Care Review Board (Board). He argues that the animals were not in distress and that it was unnecessary to keep them in the Respondent’s care to relieve any distress. He also submits that the Respondent improperly imposed zoo-style standards of care in relation to the animals and that its concerns amount to preferred husbandry practices rather than necessary care.
4The Appellant also brought an application for the return of the animals to the Board. He argues that the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the Respondent’s care have ceased to exist following his efforts to address the Respondent’s various concerns.
5On consent of the parties, the Board combined the appeal and application under section 9.1(1)(a) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 22 and the matters proceeded to a videoconference hearing.
ISSUES
6The Board must decide the following issues:
DTK Appeal (18116/ACRB)
a. Was it necessary for the Respondent to keep the animals in its care to alleviate their distress?
b. Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant?
Application for Return (18018/ACRB)
c. Have the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the Respondent’s care ceased to exist such that the animals should be returned to the Appellant?
RESULT
7I dismiss the DTK appeal. I find that it was necessary for the Respondent to keep the animals in its care to alleviate their distress. I also find that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
8I dismiss the application for return of the animals. While I find the Appellant made some efforts to address the Respondent’s concerns, the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the Respondent’s care have not ceased to exist despite those efforts, and several factors present significant barriers to the Appellant meeting the animals’ unique care and enclosure needs.
9Pursuant to the Board’s powers under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act), I decline to return the animals to the Appellant.
BACKGROUND
10The Appellant owns a property in Wainfleet, Ontario on which a residential home and former mushroom farm are located. The Appellant does not reside at the property. The tenants of the property are Michael Pynapples and his wife and daughter who live in the residential home with their dog and three cats. Mr. Pynapples is the primary caretaker for Atlas and Marilyn, in addition to two sub-adult tigers owned by the Appellant that are also kept at the property.
11On November 18, 2025, after obtaining a warrant, Animal Welfare Services (AWS) carried out an inspection of the Appellant’s property. The Appellant was not present for the inspection, and Mr. Pynapples provided AWS with information about the animals and their care. AWS Inspector Kedra Servos and AWS veterinarian Dr. Pauline Delnatte both attended the inspection, in addition to other AWS inspectors and police officers. At the conclusion of the inspection, Dr. Delnatte advised Inspector Servos in writing that Atlas and Marilyn needed to be removed to relieve distress caused by “standards of care, enclosures, distress including concerns for psychological distress.” A notice of removal under section 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act was issued and served in person, and Atlas and Marilyn were removed that same day and subsequently boarded and examined at an institutional zoo facility.
12On December 1, 2025, after the Appellant commenced his application at the Board, AWS returned for a pre-arranged reinspection of the Appellant’s property because he stated in his notice of application that he had rectified all of AWS’ concerns that led to the animals’ removal. Inspector Servos was present for this reinspection and Dr. Delnatte attended virtually. Following this reinspection, AWS was not satisfied that its concerns had been adequately addressed.
13On December 4, 2025, the Appellant sent email correspondence to AWS which outlined his plans for the animals if they were returned to him.
14On December 5, 2025, Regional Supervisor Bailey Wintermute acted as a delegate of the Respondent and issued the DTK, which is described in greater detail below.
15On December 10, 2025, AWS returned to the Appellant’s property for a second reinspection. This reinspection focused on conditions relating to the two sub-adult tigers and did not address issues concerning Atlas and Marilyn.
16On December 30, 2025, AWS returned to the Appellant’s property for a third reinspection. Inspector Servos was present for this reinspection and Dr. Delnatte attended virtually.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
I. Distress, basic standards of care for all animals, standards of care for captive wildlife, and standards for enclosures for captive wildlife
17Under section 15 of the PAWS Act, no person shall cause an animal to be in distress or knowingly or recklessly cause an animal to be exposed to an undue risk of distress. An owner or custodian of an animal shall not permit the animal to be in distress.
18Distress is defined in section 1(1) of the PAWS Act as the state of being: (a) in need of proper care, water, food or shelter; (b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering; or (c) abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect.
19The PAWS Act’s Standards of Care and Administrative Requirements regulation, O. Reg. 444/19 (the Regulation) provides detailed requirements for the standards of care for all animals in section 3, in addition to the standards of care for captive wildlife in section 5, and standards for enclosures for captive wildlife in section 6 of the Regulation. In this case, I consider Atlas and Marilyn to be captive wildlife given their respective species.
20These prescribed standards in the Regulation are not species-specific; they apply to all animals and all species of captive wildlife. That said, under section 1(5) of the Regulation, a requirement that a standard of care be adequate and appropriate or necessary is a requirement that the standard of care be adequate and appropriate or necessary to the specific animal, having regard to its species, breed and other relevant factors.
II. DTK Appeal
21For the following reasons, I find that it was necessary for the Respondent to keep the animals in its care to alleviate their distress. I also find that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the animals would be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant.
22On this appeal, the Respondent is required to demonstrate that its decision to keep the animals in its care was properly issued under one of the grounds set out in section 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
23On December 5, 2025, the Respondent issued the DTK to the Appellant on the basis that:
a. Keeping the animals in care was necessary to relieve their distress (under section 31(6)(a) of the PAWS Act), and
b. It had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant (under section 31(6)(b)(i) of the PAWS Act).
24Appendix B to the DTK contains the Respondent’s reasons in support of its decision to keep the animals in its care. Those reasons are outlined in detail below.
a. Appropriate food and water
i. DTK Reasons
25In the DTK dated December 5, 2025, Regional Supervisor Wintermute noted the following reasons for keeping the animals in the Respondent’s care, which she reiterated in her testimony at the hearing:
Atlas
“Diets did not include a properly formulated vitamin and mineral supplementation. Diet provided not appropriate for the animal exposing them to a significant risk of nutritional diseases. No water available.”
Marilyn
“Non-potable water provided. Diet lacked proper vitamin and mineral supplementation. Diet provided not appropriate for the animal exposing them to a significant risk of nutritional diseases”.
26The DTK dated December 5, 2025 also noted that on December 1, 2025, “AWS returned for a pre-arranged site visit and observed only minimal improvements to the animals’ housing. […] The welfare concerns noted during the execution of warrant and removal of the animals continue to persist.”
27The DTK further noted that while AWS had received email correspondence from the Appellant on December 4, 2025 with written plans and photographs for enclosures and housing for Atlas and Marilyn, it “has not received plans addressing other critical animal welfare and care requirements including diet and feeding, safety measures, social grouping considerations, enrichment and training, daily routines, and animal handling/contact. Both the [Appellant] and caretaker continue to lack the education and species-specific knowledge necessary for the proper care of these non-domestic animals. Consequently, they remain incapable of meeting the animals’ welfare needs.”
ii. Standards of care for food and water
28Under section 3 of the Regulation, every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate food and water. Under section 1(1) of the PAWS Act, an animal is in distress if it is in need of water and/or food.
iii. Analysis and Evidence
29I find on a balance of probabilities that it was necessary for the Respondent to keep both Atlas and Marilyn in its care to relieve distress caused by a lack of appropriate food and water. I also find on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant because the Appellant provided no evidence to AWS of how he planned to implement dietary changes and/or facilitate access to clean drinking water for either animal at the time the DTK was issued.
30Both Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified about their observations regarding Atlas and Marilyn’s food and water. Their contemporaneous notes in addition to photographs and videos taken during the November 18, 2025 inspection and December 1, 2025 reinspection were considered by Regional Supervisor Wintermute when she issued the DTK.
31I qualified Dr. Delnatte as an expert witness in the field of veterinary medicine and considered her testimony regarding her involvement in this case, as well as her expert testimony regarding the species-specific needs of spotted hyenas, tigers, and tiger cubs.
Atlas
32On November 18, 2025, Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte both observed Atlas in a plastic dog crate inside the residential home on the Appellant’s property; there were no food or water dishes in the dog crate.
33Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that Mr. Pynapples advised them that Atlas was fed ground beef or chicken that was supplemented with a protein powder. They observed the powder container on the kitchen counter and stated that it lacked any identifying labels to confirm product details. The food containers stored in the refrigerator were also unlabeled and undated.
34Dr. Delnatte further testified that she observed that Atlas had subjectively short legs which she suspected may have been caused by metabolic bone disease based on the diet that was described to her and the food she observed.
35In her expert report, Dr. Delnatte described an appropriate diet for tigers and tiger cubs. She explained that in the wild, tigers gorge themselves on fresh kills. The initial consumption of the internal organs provides tigers with necessary fat, fibre, and vitamins, and the subsequent consumption of muscle, bone, and cartilage provides tigers with protein and minerals. As replicating this diet in captivity can be challenging, the diet offered to captive tigers must be carefully reviewed to ensure their unique nutritional requirements are recognized (i.e., high protein and fat diets, and the inclusion of dietary vitamin A, arachidonic acid, taurine, and niacin).
36Dr. Delnatte further described how for young tigers, the calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D and iron contents of their diet must be carefully considered. When feeding muscle as the only diet item (such as ground meat), a properly formulated vitamin and mineral supplement is critical for nutrient balance. Nutritional imbalances, such as an improper mineral ratio or insufficient dietary calcium, can lead to serious diseases such as metabolic bone disease, especially in young growing animals. Large cats affected by metabolic bone disease can experience limb deformities (bowed bones or deviated limbs), weakened bones (prone to pathological fractures), lameness, and pain.
37In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte outlined that her suspicion that Atlas had metabolic bone disease on November 18, 2025 was confirmed by subsequent veterinary assessments. Specifically, Dr. Delnatte referenced radiographs (i.e., x-ray imaging) taken on November 25, 2025 and bloodwork carried out on November 20, 2025.
38As part of its evidence, the Respondent relied on a radiology report dated December 11, 2025 interpreting the x-ray imaging taken on November 25, 2025 in which veterinarian Dr. Marie Rush provided an assessment that Atlas’ bone changes were “most suggestive of malnutrition and metabolic bone pathology.”
39On cross examination, Dr. Delnatte denied that metabolic bone disease could be caused by genetic factors, or anything other than an inappropriate diet.
Marilyn
40On November 18, 2025, Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte observed Marilyn’s enclosure which was in an outbuilding on the Appellant’s property. In that enclosure, they testified that they observed a container with brown-coloured water with straw debris floating on the surface and were told by Mr. Pynapples that it contained rain or pond water that had not been tested and that this was Marilyn’s source of water. Mr. Pynapples reported that Marilyn’s diet consisted of ground beef and chicken fed once a day with a pinch of “white powder,” which he reported to be protein powder that was not labelled. Mr. Pynapples confirmed that Marilyn did not receive bones, whole prey, or mineral supplementation as part of his diet.
41In her expert report, Dr. Delnatte described an appropriate diet for a spotted hyena. She explained that in their natural habitat, spotted hyenas are weaned between 12 and 18 months of age. Once weaned, in the wild, spotted hyenas primarily hunt medium to large ungulates (e.g. wildebeest, zebra) but are also opportunistic scavengers, eating carrion and bones. Their powerful jaws allow them to crush bones to get the nutrient-rich marrow and their stomachs have an extremely low pH (very acidic) enabling bone digestion; the indigestible parts of animals they consume, such as hair and horns, are regurgitated as pellets. While it is difficult to mimic such a varied and complete diet, captive diets for spotted hyenas must closely replicate the protein and fat content and the mineral and vitamin profile of their natural diet. That diet can be achieved by offering a meat-based felid diet supplemented with vitamins and minerals, some whole prey, and occasional bones.
42In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte stated that bloodwork and radiographs taken post-removal supported her suspicion that Marilyn had an improper diet. Specifically, her conclusion was based on radiographs (x-ray imaging) taken on December 11, 2025 and bloodwork carried out on December 3, 2025. Dr. Delnatte stated that in her view, Marilyn’s carpal bones were more outwardly deviated than normal, causing bilateral carpal valgus limb deformity, and that the radiographs and bloodwork showed other abnormalities, including an abnormally low calcium-phosphorus ratio. In Dr. Delnatte’s opinion, these changes are most consistent with a lack of appropriate dietary protein and mineral supplementation.
43As part of its evidence, the Respondent relied on a radiology report dated December 14, 2025, interpreting the x-ray imaging taken on November 25, 2025. In that report, veterinarian Dr. April Romagnano provided an assessment that Marilyn has “predominately normal osseous (bone) structures, with the exception of [a] few minor discrepancies noted in the distal right carpi. These discrepancies may be consistent with this hyena’s history and clinical findings of some extra degree of carpal valgus, normally common/typical for species, but particularly turned out in this case.”
44The Appellant testified that while he disagreed that the animals’ diets caused distress, as of November 19, 2025, he was prepared to commit to a structured feeding plan with a diet that would include appropriate whole prey components and raw mixes with a balance of organs and supplementation, where appropriate. The Appellant testified that he was also prepared to address the Respondent’s concerns about labelling and recordkeeping of food and would store and organize food in a manner that was trackable. Regarding water, the Appellant testified that he was prepared to ensure clean water is consistently available, and that bowls and feeding areas would be maintained to a clean standard.
45The Appellant did not provide any evidence, nor show proof of the changes required to implement his proposed feeding plan, diet, or supplementation for either animal to the Respondent at the time the DTK was issued. The Appellant also did not present any evidence in this regard at the hearing.
46I accept Dr. Delnatte’s expert evidence regarding the dietary needs of tiger cubs and spotted hyenas and find that the diet provided to Atlas and Marilyn at the time of their removal was not appropriate and caused distress within the meaning of the PAWS Act. Specifically, I find that the diet of ground beef and/or chicken and unlabeled protein powder that both Dr. Delnatte and Inspector Servos directly observed during the November 18, 2025 inspection was insufficient and did not meet the animals’ respective dietary needs, particularly in respect of the required vitamin and mineral content of the animals’ diets. I also find that the lack of available water that was observed by Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte caused distress for both animals within the meaning of the PAWS Act.
47In addition, I find that the post-removal veterinary findings confirm the presence of metabolic bone disease in Atlas and were suggestive of limb deformities in Marilyn. I accept Dr. Delnatte’s interpretation of these findings as being caused by deficiencies in the animals’ diets. Further, even though these findings were not available to the Respondent at the time the DTK was issued, I find that it was reasonable for the Respondent to rely on Dr. Delnatte’s suspicion of these findings based on her November 18, 2025 assessment of the animals in issuing the DTK.
48I do not accept the Appellant’s argument that the description of the animals as “bright, alert, and ambulatory” in some of the email reports from the institutional zoo facility where the animals were being temporarily boarded following their removal contradicts a finding of distress, nor do I agree with his interpretation of the post-removal veterinary findings as being supportive of the animals’ diet prior to their removal.
49While I accept the Appellant’s argument that any deficiencies in Atlas or Marilyn’s diet can be addressed through dietary optimization, I do not accept his argument that keeping the animals in the Respondent’s care was unnecessary to achieve this goal because the Appellant provided no evidence to establish that he completed or was able to complete such remediation by the time the DTK was issued.
50Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Respondent’s decision to keep the animals in its care was properly issued under both grounds set out in section 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
b. Appropriate care, facilities, and services for the general welfare of captive wildlife; daily routine; and compatible social groups
51I find on a balance of probabilities that it was necessary for the Respondent to keep both Atlas and Marilyn in its care to relieve distress caused by the absence of an appropriate daily routine and because neither animal was kept in compatible social groups while in the Appellant’s care. I also find on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant because the Appellant provided no evidence of changes to the animals’ daily routine and plans to change their social grouping.
i. DTK Reasons
52In the DTK dated December 5, 2025, Regional Supervisor Wintermute noted the following reasons for keeping the animals in the Respondent’s care, which she reiterated in her testimony:
Atlas
“Animal confined inside a dwelling with no appropriate enclosure; minimal enrichment and insufficient space to stimulate and support natural movement and behaviors; lack of provisions for and no daily routine to support natural movement and behaviour; inappropriate interaction with domestic animals (cats and dog) inside the dwelling, not a compatible social grouping; unprotected contact with the caretakers.”
Marilyn
“Acquisition occurred prior to construction of suitable housing; unprotected contact with the caretakers; animal housed alone with no conspecifics despite being a social species, creating risk of psychological stress”.
53As noted above, the DTK also mentioned that following a reinspection and email correspondence from the Appellant dated December 4, 2025, Regional Supervisor Wintermute believed the Appellant had not addressed other critical animal welfare and care requirements, including “social grouping considerations, enrichment and training, daily routines, and animal handling/contact.”
ii. Standards of care for the general welfare, daily routine and social grouping of captive wildlife
54Under section 3 of the Regulation, every animal must be provided with the care necessary for its general welfare. Under section 5(1) of the Regulation, wildlife kept in captivity must be provided with adequate and appropriate care, facilities and services to ensure their safety and general welfare.
55Under section 5(2) of the Regulation, wildlife kept in captivity must be provided with a daily routine that facilitates and stimulates natural movement and behaviour.
56Under section 5(3) of the Regulation, wildlife kept in captivity must be kept in compatible social groups to ensure the general welfare of the individual animals and of the group and to ensure that each animal in the group is not at risk of injury or undue stress from dominant animals of the same or a different species.
iii. Analysis and Evidence
Atlas
57Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that Mr. Pynapples explained that the Appellant acquired Atlas when Atlas was approximately five to six weeks old, and that Mr. Pynapples, his wife, and daughter had hand-raised Atlas as a family pet and managed him in “unprotected contact.” In this context, unprotected contact means coming into direct physical contact with Atlas without any protective measures in place.
58According to Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte, Mr. Pynapples stated that the plan was to keep Atlas inside their home during the winter months and then move Atlas to an outdoor enclosure in the spring. During this time, Atlas would share a common space with Mr. Pynapples, his wife and daughter, in addition to their dog and three domesticated cats.
59In terms of Atlas’ daily routine, Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that Mr. Pynapples stated that Atlas was kept in a dog crate when he was unsupervised during the day and at night. According to Dr. Delnatte, the dog crate was in the kitchen and measured 3 feet by 2.5 feet by 2 feet.
60Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that Mr. Pynapples stated that when Atlas was not in the dog crate during the day, he was left to roam in the living room under supervision with the doors shut. Atlas also had intermittent access to an outside wooden deck which was connected to the living room to eat, urinate, and defecate. Mr. Pynapples stated that while his dog and three cats had initially tolerated Atlas, as Atlas grew, all but one cat no longer tolerated Atlas.
61Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that they observed no dedicated feature or furnishing for Atlas inside the home, nor was there a platform or vertical space for Atlas to use. Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that they observed one dog toy, one dog bed, and one fluffy blanket on the wood deck that was partly chewed, but there were no other features or furnishings, nor was there a platform, or vertical space for Atlas to use outdoors.
62Dr. Delnatte testified that during the post-removal investigations, it was found that Atlas had ingested small pieces of shag carpet while at the Appellant’s property. While in the Respondent’s care, Atlas also ingested small pieces of blanket. In Dr. Delnatte’s opinion, this type of compulsive behaviour is considered very unusual for tiger cubs and posed a risk of gastrointestinal obstruction.
63In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte described the social behaviour and needs of tigers and tiger cubs, in addition to their natural movement and behaviour. She explained that tigers are territorial predators, patrolling large territories marked by scent (e.g., scratch marks, urine spraying). They are most active at night, and hunt by stalking and ambushing prey. They have amazing swimming and climbing abilities. Providing a rich and varied environment to create opportunities to express those behaviours is critical to ensure that tigers thrive in a captive environment.
64Dr. Delnatte further described that while adult tigers are primarily solitary, tiger cubs remain with their mothers for about two years during which they learn vital skills like hunting, hiding, boundary respect, and proper socialization. The average litter size is three and littermate companionship is important for providing valuable play experience necessary for proper socialization and normal developmental skills. Hand-raising a single tiger cub is strongly discouraged as it compromises not only the immediate welfare of the cub but also compromises the animal’s later success in dealing with conspecifics (i.e., other tigers).
65In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte stated that based on her observations, Atlas had very limited opportunities to exercise and no opportunities to express natural behaviours (e.g., climbing, scratching, running, scent marking, etc.). The dog crate to which Atlas was confined when unsupervised did not allow any form of exercise or expression of natural behaviours. The living room and outdoor deck spaces did not provide the size, complexity and features required to express natural behaviours such as natural substrate, climbing structures, water features, and running space. There was minimal passive enrichment (dog toys) but no enrichment or physical features purposedly stimulating those natural behaviours. Dr. Delnatte also expressed concern about Atlas coexisting with Mr. Pynapples’ dog and three cats.
66Dr. Delnatte stated that hand-raising Atlas without access to a mother or littermate, affects his ability to learn a species-specific behavioural repertoire and learn crucial skills. At four months-old, Atlas would have naturally been transitioning to solid food, learning skills from his mother, and playing with littermates.
67Dr. Delnatte also expressed concern about Mr. Pynapples’ lack of expertise and experience with captive wildlife as Atlas’ caregiver. Dr. Delnatte stated that Mr. Pynapples lacked understanding of key concepts critical in animal husbandry such as the word “enrichment” and appeared to lack awareness of the danger Atlas could present. Dr. Delnatte stated that Mr. Pynapples told her on November 18, 2025 that tigers were like domestic cats, “just ten times bigger.”
Marilyn
68Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that Mr. Pynapples explained that the Appellant acquired Marilyn approximately three weeks before the November 18, 2025 inspection and that he was initially kept in an outdoor enclosure and had only been brought to an indoor pen two days prior due to falling temperatures. The specifics of Marilyn’s indoor enclosure are outlined in greater detail below.
69Inspector Servos testified that Mr. Pynapples said the plan was to keep Marilyn in the current indoor space throughout the winter months and return him to the outdoor enclosure in the summer, once upgrades and repairs were completed.
70Inspector Servos further testified that Mr. Pynapples claimed that he and his wife and daughter would spend approximately 30-60 minutes each day with Marilyn, engaging in unprotected contact and that they raised him like a “puppy.” According to Inspector Servos, Mr. Pynapples said there were no plans to socialize Marilyn with another hyena.
71In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte described the social behaviour and needs of spotted hyenas, in addition to their natural movement and behaviour. Dr. Delnatte explained that spotted hyenas are nocturnal, versatile predators. They are good swimmers, excellent diggers, and great runners. Hyenas are considered the most social carnivores living in tight matriarchal clans. Their social rank is determined by the mother’s status and dictates access to food and mating. They naturally display complex social behavior revolving around communal dens and communicate using body language and sophisticated vocalizations.
72Dr. Delnatte further explained that hyenas are considered intelligent, make decisions, and understand third-party relationships. Their key natural behaviours include scent marking and ritualized wrestling to maintain social structure, cooperative hunting, scavenging, foraging, running, and denning. Dr. Delnatte explained that hyenas require a large and complex enclosure with sufficient space to run, natural substrate with the opportunity to dig and den, a deep dig barrier to prevent escape, and compatible social grouping to fulfill their basic social needs.
73Dr. Delnatte noted in her testimony and expert report that when she observed Marilyn on November 18, 2025, he “appeared friendly, was very calm, did not vocalize once during the entire inspection and did not attempt to exit the crate.” Dr. Delnatte described those behaviours as very unusual for a spotted hyena and said they were consistent with Marilyn having been hand-raised and bottle-fed.
74In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte stated that Marilyn had very limited opportunities to exercise and no opportunities to express natural behaviours (e.g., digging, denning, foraging, running, scent marking, etc.). The small size and lack of complexity of the pen and the absence of enrichment and outdoor access did not allow any form of exercise or expression of natural behaviours.
75Dr. Delnatte also stated that keeping Marilyn in isolation deprived him from expressing his most basic social natural behaviours (e.g., socializing, playing, vocalizing, etc.). At 10 months old, he would still have been with his mother, nursing occasionally, and being under the protection of his birth clan. The fact that he was hand-raised would also affect his ability to learn a species-specific behavioural repertoire and learn crucial skills. She interpreted Marilyn’s calm and subdued behaviour and the absence of vocalization as abnormal and indicative of psychological issues.
76The Appellant testified that following the animals’ removal, he developed a routine and enrichment plan for both animals. For Atlas, his routine would include food enrichment and scent enrichment items and structured outdoor time to support natural movement and exercise. The Appellant testified that food enrichment for Atlas would consist of placing food items in different areas of the enclosure rather than a food bowl, and that scent enrichment would include introducing items like clothing and toys with new smells to the enclosure. Regarding outdoor time, the Appellant testified that this time would be supervised and would occur in the morning and again later in the day with rest periods in between.
77On cross examination, the Appellant testified that while he had a pool which could be used as a water feature for Atlas as a form of enrichment, it was not yet installed given the cold weather. The Appellant also testified that he had plans for a vertical perch, barrels, as well as tree logs in Atlas’ enclosure in the future as a form of enrichment, however these were also not yet in place.
78The Appellant did not provide any evidence and made no submissions regarding Atlas’ social needs as a tiger cub.
79Regarding Marilyn’s daily routine, the Appellant testified that his daily routine would allow for a period of outdoor activity and include feeding enrichment such as food presentation that encourages foraging, scent enrichment, and environmental changes to Marilyn’s enclosure to prevent boredom.
80Regarding Marilyn’s social needs, the Appellant testified that he developed a daily routine that was aimed at minimizing stress as Marilyn was “a rescue” and had not come from a stable social group. In his testimony, the Appellant acknowledged that hyenas are a social species but underscored that he wanted to establish a consistent routine for Marilyn prior to introducing him to other hyenas. When questioned, the Appellant stated he would not commit to a specific number of hyenas he might introduce to Marilyn in the future and said that he planned to “approach social housing gradually.”
81I accept Dr. Delnatte’s evidence regarding the social behaviour and needs of tiger cubs and spotted hyenas. I also accept Dr. Delnatte’s evidence regarding the appropriate social grouping for tiger cubs and spotted hyenas. Specifically, I accept that Mr. Pynapples’ cats and dog are not an appropriate social grouping for Atlas, and that it is a basic social need for Atlas to have access to a mother or littermates as part of his development as a tiger cub. I also accept that it is a basic social need for Marilyn to be kept with other spotted hyenas because hyenas are a social species. I do not accept the Appellant’s argument that because Marilyn is a “rescue” that it would be appropriate to keep him in isolation until a later time. Accordingly, I find that neither animal was placed in an appropriate social grouping.
82I find that at the time of their removal, neither Atlas nor Marilyn had an appropriate daily routine in place. It was inappropriate for Atlas to be confined, alone, in a dog crate during the day and at night. The supervised time indoors in the living room and outdoors on the wooden deck was both insufficient and inappropriate as a daily routine. It was inappropriate for Marilyn to be confined alone, indoors, with no access to the outdoors. It was inappropriate for Marilyn’s daily routine to be limited to 30-60 minutes of unprotected contact per day with his caretakers.
83I find that the physical environment offered to both animals as observed by Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte prevented the animals’ natural movement and behaviours rather than stimulating them because the animals were kept in inappropriate enclosures that lacked enrichment and/or features that would support natural movements and behaviours.
84Taken together, I find this combination of factors resulted in distress under the PAWS Act.
85The Appellant did not provide any evidence or show proof of his ability to fulfill his plans for the animals’ daily routine, nor did the Appellant propose an appropriate social grouping for either animal at the time the DTK was issued.
86Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Respondent’s decision to keep the animals in its care was properly issued under both grounds set out in section 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
c. Basic standards of care; adequate and appropriate enclosures for captive wildlife
87I find on a balance of probabilities that it was necessary for the Respondent to keep both Atlas and Marilyn in its care to relieve distress caused by inadequate and inappropriate enclosures for both animals. I also find on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the animals may be placed in distress if returned to the Appellant because the Appellant had made inadequate changes to their enclosures at the time the DTK was issued.
i. DTK Reasons
88In the DTK dated December 5, 2025, Regional Supervisor Wintermute noted the following reasons for keeping the animals in the Respondent’s care, which she reiterated in her testimony:
Atlas
“Inadequate housing and enclosures, minimal enrichment items, and insufficient space for non-domestic species; animal confined inside a dwelling with no appropriate enclosure; safety hazards and risks included vinyl flooring, access to harmful chemicals, and debris; outdoor access is not designed to prevent unsafe interaction with people or animal escape; housing lacked access to a proper water feature (e.g., pools, streams, or ponds) to promote and stimulate natural behaviours.”
89Regional Supervisor Wintermute also noted the following in the DTK, which she reiterated in her testimony, regarding a reinspection that took place on December 1, 2025 at the Appellant’s property and email correspondence sent from the Appellant to AWS on December 4, 2025 as it relates to Atlas’ enclosure: “Upon review, [the Appellant’s] plans confirm that the proposed enclosures for Atlas remain inappropriate and inadequate because of:
“Insufficient space, vertical structures, and features to support and stimulate natural movement and/or behaviors; presence of safety hazards including wood-board paneling and sharp materials; failure to ensure unrestricted natural growth of the tiger cub; no access to a proper water feature (e.g., pool, stream, or pond) to promote natural behaviors; indoor area lacks an external heat source and natural lighting; inadequate distance from other animals (sub-adult tigers and hyena) and people, causing psychological stress; insufficient fence height and absence of a dig barrier, creating escape risks; and inability to shift the animals to safely access the enclosure for daily servicing.”
Marilyn
90“Inadequate housing and enclosures, lack of enrichment, and insufficient space for non-domestic species; animal housed in a small, poorly lit area with minimal bedding, no enrichment, and no heat source or natural light; enclosure lacked sufficient space, denning structures, and features to support and stimulate natural movement and/or behaviors; safety hazards present, including exposed insulation, plastic debris, and sharp materials; not secured to prevent animal escape by digging or burrowing.”
91Regional Supervisor Wintermute also noted the following in the DTK, which she reiterated in her testimony, regarding a reinspection that took place on December 1, 2025 at the Appellant’s property and email correspondence sent from the Appellant to AWS on December 4, 2025 as it relates to Marilyn’s enclosure:
“Absence of denning structures, furnishings, and features to support natural movement and behaviors; presence of safety hazards, including sharp materials; indoor area lacks an external heat source and a door flap to retain heat; inadequate distance from other animals (tiger cub) and people, causing psychological stress; insufficient fence height and absence of a dig barrier, creating escape risks; inability to shift the animals to safely access the enclosure for daily servicing.”
ii. Standards of care for basic care and adequate and appropriate enclosures for captive wildlife
92Under section 3 of the Regulation, every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate: (a) space to enable the animal to move naturally and to exercise; (b) sanitary conditions; (c) ventilation; (d) light; and (e) protection from the elements, including harmful temperatures.
93Further, section 3 of the Regulation states that if an animal is confined to a pen or other enclosed structure or area, the following requirements apply: (a) the pen or other enclosed structure or area, and any structures or material in it, must be in a state of good repair; (b) the pen or other enclosed structure or area, and any surfaces, structures and materials in it, must be made of and contain only materials that are, (i) safe and non-toxic for the animal, and (ii) of a texture and design that will not bruise, cut or otherwise injure the animal; and (c) the pen or other enclosed structure or area must not contain one or more other animals that may pose a danger to the animal. These requirements also apply to captive wildlife under section 6(3) of the Regulation.
94Under section 6(1) of the Regulation, there are additional standards for enclosures for captive wildlife. These requirements include the following: A pen or other enclosed structure or area for wildlife kept in captivity must be of an adequate and appropriate size to: (a) facilitate and stimulate natural movement and behaviour; (b) enable each animal in the pen or other enclosed structure or area to keep an adequate and appropriate distance from the other animals and people so that it is not psychologically stressed; (c) ensure that the natural growth of each animal in the pen or other enclosed structure or area is not restricted.
95Section 6(2) of the Regulation further requires that a pen or other enclosed structure or area for wildlife kept in captivity must have: (a) features and furnishings that facilitate and stimulate the natural movement and behaviour of each animal in the pen or other enclosed structure or area; (b) shelter from the elements that can accommodate all the animals in the pen or other enclosed structure or area at the same time; (c) surfaces and other materials that accommodate the natural movement and behaviour of each animal in the pen or other enclosed structure or area; (d) one or more areas that are out of view of spectators; and (e) one or more sleeping areas that can accommodate all the animals in the pen or other enclosed structure or area at the same time and that are accessible to all the animals at all times.
96Finally, section 6(4) of the Regulation requires that a pen or other enclosed structure or area for wildlife kept in captivity and any gates or other barriers to it, including moats, must be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that presents no harm to the wildlife, and must be locked or otherwise secured to prevent: (a) interaction with people that may be unsafe or inappropriate for the wildlife; (b) animals escaping from the pen or other enclosed structure or area by climbing, jumping, digging, burrowing or any other means; and (c) animals or people, other than people who are required to enter the enclosure as part of their duties, from entering the pen or other enclosed structure or area by climbing, jumping, digging, burrowing or any other means.
iii. Analysis and Evidence
Atlas
97As outlined above, Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that during the November 18, 2025 inspection, they first observed Atlas in a plastic dog crate measuring 3 feet by 2.5 feet by 2 feet located in the kitchen of the residential home on the Appellant’s property. Dr. Delnatte described the living room where Atlas would spend supervised time as containing multiple hazards in Atlas’ direct reach including a multitude of small objects, electrical wires, and carpets and cushions, including a cushion with exposed foam-based material. Both Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that there was a strong smell of either cannabis and/or burning incense in the living room. In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte stated that both incense and cannabis can cause respiratory issues and toxicosis to animals.
98Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that the outdoor deck to which Atlas had supervised access also contained hazards, including a barbeque with broken doors, an exposed propane tank, liquid bleach containers, and other unsecured objects such as sharp metallic poles and electrical wires. Dr. Delnatte noted that the outdoor wood deck was 15.5 feet wide by 15.5 feet long and 3.5 feet in height.
99Dr. Delnatte also described the outdoor wood deck and outdoor space as lacking appropriate fencing (i.e., no secondary containment or perimeter fencing) and that Atlas could have escaped the Appellant’s property if he climbed or jumped off the wood deck.
100In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte stated that neither the indoor nor outdoor space contained a dedicated feature or furnishing for Atlas, nor did it contain a platform, or useable vertical space. Dr. Delnatte stated that these spaces did not provide the size, complexity and/or features required for Atlas to express natural behaviours. Some of the required features include a natural substrate, climbing structures, water features, and running space.
101Inspector Servos testified that during the reinspection on December 1, 2025, she observed that two workers were present at the Appellant’s property and there appeared to be the beginning phase of renovations and construction at the property. She was informed that the workers had been hired two days prior and testified that she understood that these workers did not have specialized knowledge or experience in constructing enclosures.
102Regarding the fencing that was being installed for the animals’ outdoor enclosures by the workers at that time, Inspector Servos testified that the fencing was not of a proper height, was weak in some areas with big gaps, and that the dig barrier in place at that time was floating at ground level along the edge of the fence line with a layer of straw bedding on top.
103In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte explained that the enclosure size and structural complexity and the enrichment program for tigers should stimulate behaviours such as stalking, pouncing, running, chasing, climbing, swimming, scratching, scent marking, and resting. As a result, tigers should be maintained in large and complex outdoor enclosures with access to natural light, substrate and vegetation, resting platforms, a water feature, and climbing structures. The “Tiger Care Manual”, published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA Guide) in 2016 recommends that an exhibit enclosure for one tiger measure at least 40 feet wide by 40 feet long with a smaller shift area to permit safe cleaning and exhibit maintenance.
Marilyn
104Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that during the November 18, 2025 inspection Marilyn was housed indoors in a pen located in an outbuilding between two shipping containers on the Appellant’s property. Marilyn had no outdoor access, nor was there an ability to shift or lock Marilyn out of the pen before entering the enclosure to clean it and/or to provide Marilyn food and water.
105Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that there was no supplemental heat source, and that Marilyn’s pen was poorly lit with no natural lighting and only one overhead light with wiring that could be accessed by Marilyn.
106Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that the pen contained various potentially hazardous materials such as yellow low grade insulation material covered by a thick transparent plastic that was only partially covered by thin plywood nailed to the walls. They both observed several large pieces of chewed hard plastic and some insulation materials on the ground in Marilyn’s pen.
107Inspector Servos and Dr. Delnatte testified that the pen’s floor was concrete with some gravel and covered in a thin layer of straw. There was no dig barrier. In terms of bedding for Marilyn, a 1,000-litre plastic water container had been cut open on one side and bedded with straw. This container was located on the floor of the enclosure, and the edges of the opening in the water container were sharp. The following was absent from Marilyn’s enclosure: enrichment, features or furnishings, platforms, and vertical space. There was also no opportunity for Marilyn to den or burrow.
108Inspector Servos’ testimony regarding the December 1, 2025 reinspection is set out above and her observations related equally to Marilyn.
109In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte explained that spotted hyenas are native to sub-Saharan Africa and primarily inhabit tropical and subtropical environments. While they tolerate a wide range of temperatures during daylight, they require a heated shelter when temperatures fall below 0C.
110Dr. Delnatte testified that there were no agreed upon guidelines for the care of spotted hyenas equivalent to the AZA Guide for tiger care, however, she outlined that hyenas require a large and complex enclosure with sufficient space to run, natural substrate with the opportunity to dig and den, and a deep dig barrier to prevent escape.
111In her expert report and testimony, Dr. Delnatte testified that while she did not attend the reinspections that occurred on Decembmer 1 and 30, 2025 in-person, she briefly attended the reinspections virtually and reviewed photographs taken afterwards. In her opinion, no appropriate enclosures were built and the Appellant’s proposed enclosure plans continued to fail to meet the standards of care for both animals because of: insufficient space; unsafe construction that presented a risk of escape; the absence of appropriate features and furnishings; the absence of a proper shifting area; and inadequate distance between non-compatible individuals.
112The Appellant testified that he sent email correspondence to AWS on December 4, 2025 outlining his proposed changes to the enclosures for Atlas and Marilyn and described the details of a hand drawn diagram attached to that correspondence at the hearing.
113I accept Dr. Delnatte’s testimony regarding the requirements for appropriate enclosures for tiger cubs and spotted hyenas, and specifically her testimony regarding enclosure size and complexity for both animals.
114While I acknowledge that the Appellant had not owned Atlas and Marilyn for long on the date of their removal, the enclosures for both animals at that time were clearly inappropriate; a dog crate, residential living room, and outdoor deck do not constitute an appropriate enclosure for a tiger cub, nor is a 1,000-litre water can in a windowless, unheated shipping container an appropriate enclosure for a spotted hyena.
115I also acknowledge that the Appellant made changes to his property in good faith to accommodate new indoor and outdoor enclosures for both animals following their removal and that he communicated those changes in-person and in writing to the Respondent by December 4, 2025, the day before the DTK was issued. Based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that those changes – most of which remained incomplete as of December 5, 2025 – met the animals’ unique enclosure needs as described by Dr. Delnatte.
116The photographs and video evidence of the changes as of December 1, 2025 show minimal improvement that focused mainly on the installation of fencing. I also accept Inspector Servos’ testimony regarding the deficiencies she observed in respect of the enclosures during the reinspection that occurred on December 1, 2025.
117I agree with the Appellant’s argument that the AZA Guide is not law in Ontario and that the PAWS Act does not require perfection. That said, I do not accept the Appellant’s argument that the Respondent sought to impose unreasonable standards of idealized care on the Appellant in relation to the enclosures of either animal. I accept the Respondent’s argument that Dr. Delnatte’s reliance on the AZA guide was reasonable in determining the expected standards of care and what is adequate and appropriate for tigers as a species. I also find that the standards for enclosures described by Dr. Delnatte in her testimony were applicable and appropriate considering the species-specific requirements for hyenas, including their sensitivity to colder temperatures.
118Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Respondent’s decision to keep the animals in its care was properly issued under both grounds set out in section 31(6) of the PAWS Act.
III. Application
119In an application for the return of animals under section 38(4) of the PAWS Act, the applicant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the Respondent’s care are no longer present.
120For the following reasons, I find that the conditions that caused the animals to be kept in the Respondent’s care have not ceased to exist such that the animals should be returned to the Appellant.
121The parties relied on the same testimony given in relation to the DTK appeal for the application for return of the animals, except as noted below.
a. Appropriate food and water
122As set out above, the Appellant testified about the changes he intended to make to the animals’ diets but did not provide any evidence in relation to those changes. Specifically, there was no evidence before me regarding what efforts, if any, the Appellant had made or how he would obtain “whole prey components and raw mixes” of food for Atlas or Marilyn. It was also unclear what vitamin and mineral supplementation the Appellant had purchased for the animals and when, as he did not provide any evidence in this regard.
123In my view, the Appellant has not demonstrated an adequate understanding of the complexity of meeting either animals’ unique dietary needs nor has he outlined any plan for procuring or providing the foods necessary to meet those needs.
124I find that the Appellant’s testimony regarding food and water amounted to bald statements outlining his intentions for the animals’ diet.
125Therefore, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the conditions that existed at the time the animals were kept in the Respondent’s care in respect of their food and water have ceased to exist such that the animals should be returned to the Appellant.
b. Appropriate care, facilities, and services for the general welfare of captive wildlife; daily routine; and compatible social groups
126As set out above, the Appellant testified about a routine and enrichment plan he had developed for both animals following their removal.
127I find the Appellant’s evidence regarding his plans for the animals’ daily routines if returned to him to be vague and lacking in specifics. Moreover, given the complexity and specialized knowledge required to meet both animals’ behavioural and social needs, in my view the Appellant currently lacks sufficient knowledge to develop and/or oversee an appropriate daily routine for either animal.
128I find the Appellant’s stated plan to keep Marilyn housed alone for an indeterminate period, and the fact that the Appellant did not address Atlas’ social grouping needs as a tiger cub, to be particularly concerning.
129Therefore, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the conditions that existed at the time the animals were kept in the Respondent’s care in respect of the animals’ daily routine and social grouping have ceased to exist such that the animals should be returned to the Appellant.
c. Basic standards of care; adequate and appropriate enclosures for captive wildlife
130In addition to the Appellant’s evidence about the enclosures that is set out in detail below, I also heard and considered the evidence of Inspector Servos regarding her observations during the December 30, 2025 reinspection of the Appellant’s property.
131Inspector Servos testified that as of that date, there were three separate outdoor chain-link fenced enclosures that existed side-by-side on the Appellant’s property: one enclosure for two sub-adult tigers on one side, one enclosure intended for Marilyn on the other side, and one enclosure intended for Atlas located in the middle of those two enclosures. These enclosures were connected to two trailers and a small outbuilding which were intended to provide indoor space for the animals. While further changes to the property had been made since December 1, 2025, Inspector Servos testified that, in her view, on December 30, 2025, several issues regarding the enclosures for both animals remained.
132Inspector Servos noted the following for Atlas’ enclosure:
a. An outdoor enclosure measuring 15.5 feet by 30 feet was completed, however Atlas would need to walk through a small shift area to gain access to the indoor enclosure.
b. Due to the location of his enclosure, Atlas could see and potentially be nose-to-nose with the sub-adult tigers on one side of the fence and Marilyn on the other side of the fence, which would cause stress for all animals. The Appellant’s proposed solution was to install metal sheets to reduce – but not eliminate – Atlas’ view of and contact with the other animals.
c. A heat source for the indoor enclosure had not been purchased as of that date.
133Inspector Servos noted the following for Marilyn’s enclosure:
a. The outdoor enclosure remained under construction. The materials selected for the fence and dig barrier were too large and presented a trip hazard and would need to be buried underground to mitigate safety risks.
b. There was no heat source installed at the time. The Appellant’s plan to purchase and install a diesel gas generated heater raised further questions and concerns regarding the placement of the exhaust pipe of the heater.
c. The indoor enclosure had some straw bedding in it but the hole that was cut out to make an opening for Marilyn had sharp edges.
d. Neither the indoor nor outdoor enclosure had furnishings. There was also no denning area or rest area.
e. Marilyn would be housed in close proximity to the sub-adult tigers and Atlas and this would cause stress.
134The Appellant testified that following the December 30, 2025 reinspection, he decided to make further changes to the enclosures and specifically which animal would be housed where. The Appellant testified that the enclosure that he originally proposed to use for Atlas (i.e., the middle enclosure of the three outdoor enclosures) would instead be used by Marilyn, and he would house Atlas in a 40 foot by 60 foot outdoor enclosure that he previously used for the two sub-adult tigers.
135The Appellant testified that he had buried a dig barrier three feet underground and reinforced the fencing of a four-foot-tall perimeter fence at every foot. The Appellant described having created a shift area that is separated from the middle outdoor enclosure which measures 10 feet by 15 feet. The shift area would be used to temporarily lock the animals out of their respective enclosures for the purpose of Mr. Pynapples or others entering the enclosure for feeding or cleaning.
136The Appellant testified that since December 30, 2025, he had purchased and installed a heat source in the indoor enclosure to be used by Marilyn, as well as heated water bowls for both animals. The Appellant also testified that he smoothed out the sharp edges of Marilyn’s enclosure.
137Based on the evidence before me regarding the changes the Appellant made to the enclosures after December 5, 2025 to the date of the hearing, I am not persuaded that the Appellant’s plans and/or changes to the enclosures meet the animals’ unique enclosure needs.
138Regardless of which of the three outdoor enclosures Atlas and Marilyn would occupy, the evidence supports that the enclosures remain an inappropriate size for the animals, use inappropriate materials (such as hard plastic and metal sheets), and lack the necessary complexity that both species of animals require. Specifically, I am concerned by the lack of furnishings, enrichment features, as well as the absence of denning and rest areas. I am also concerned about the physical proximity of the animals to each other in their respective enclosures and the potential for this to cause stress for all animals housed at the Appellant’s property.
139While the enclosure conditions that existed at the time the animals were kept in the Respondent’s care are now different, I find on a balance of probabilities that the new conditions continue to present a risk of distress for both animals and therefore find that the animals should not be returned to the Appellant.
d. Municipal By-Law Issue
140Inspector Servos testified that on October 1, 2025, she contacted the Township of Wainfleet Bylaw Officer who confirmed that the Appellant’s property is not zoned to permit exotic non-domestic animals and that there were no non-domestic animals registered to the Appellant’s address.
141The Appellant testified that to his knowledge there is no active order from a municipal authority prohibiting the animals from being kept at his property.
142The Respondent called reply evidence in the form of an Order dated December 17, 2025 issued from the Township of Wainfleet to the Occupant/Property Owner at the Appellant’s property advising of a by-law violation of Exotic Animal By-law No. 011-2018 and of Zoning By-law No. 034-2014. The Order provided a deadline of January 15, 2026 to rectify the by-law violations and stated that penalties and/or legal action may result for failure to do so.
143The Appellant testified that he was actively working with the township of Wainfleet to resolve the zoning issue and entered email correspondence showing ongoing discussions with a by-law officer as evidence.
144I considered the potential effect of the Order dated December 17, 2025 issued by the Township of Wainfleet to the Appellant in respect of violations of exotic animal and zoning by-laws as being relevant to the application for return, and specifically the conditions to which the animals may be returned. I afforded limited weight to the Order as the deadline for compliance was pending as of the date of the hearing and there was evidence that the Appellant was in active discussions with the township in respect of those issues.
ORDER
145Pursuant to the powers of the Board under section 38(9) of the PAWS Act I decline to make an order to return Atlas and Marilyn to the Appellant.
Released: March 9, 2026
___________________________
Tassia Poynter, Vice-Chair