Khan Kong v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 225

Date: April 16, 2026

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

Between:

Khan Kong Applicant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Peter Simmons, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Khan Kong, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Brandon James, Regional Supervisor, Animal Welfare Services (AWS)

Danielle Meuleman, Counsel

Heard By Videoconference: March 9, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Khan Kong (Applicant) has applied for the return of his cat (Odin) who was removed from his care in February of 2026.

2On February 1, 2026, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) responded to a complaint at the Applicant’s apartment complex involving a cat that had died after falling from an apartment balcony. TPS determined the deceased cat named Cloud belonged to the Applicant who also owns another cat, Odin. TPS seized Cloud under s. 44 Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, S.O. 2019,c.13 (PAWS Act) and removed Odin under s.31(1)(b) of the PAWS Act and contacted Animal Welfare Services (AWS).¹

3After responding to the call from TPS on February 1, 2026, AWS removed Cloud and assumed the care of Odin believing him to be in critical distress.² The Applicant had been arrested by TPS at his apartment, and there was no known immediate care for Odin. AWS also believed Odin was at risk of suffering the same fate as Cloud, as it was undetermined how Cloud came to fall from the balcony. AWS immediately took Odin to a veterinarian for assessment.

4The veterinary assessment revealed that Odin had several health-related issues, including an upper respiratory infection, a heart murmur (grade 2/6), dental/gum infection, yeast infection, bacterial infection, an underlying allergic disease, and was overweight (high body condition score of 7/9).

5On February 4, 2026, pursuant to s.31(1)(b) of the PAWS Act, AWS issued a Notice of Removal (NOR) to the Applicant for Odin. On February 13, 2026, pursuant to s. 31(6)(b)(i) and (7) of the PAWS Act, AWS issued a Notice of Decision to Keep Animal(s) in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (DTK) for Odin, citing reasonable grounds to believe that Odin may be placed in distress if returned to the Applicant, and that keeping Odin in their care was necessary to relieve his distress.

6On February 6, 2026, and prior to the issuance of the DTK, the Applicant filed an Application for Return of an Animal (Application) with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) pursuant to s. 38(4) of the PAWS Act.³ He did not appeal the NOR, or the subsequent DTK, and they were not before me at the hearing. These instruments, however, were used as evidence at the hearing by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI or Respondent).

7The Board held a case conference on February 13, 2026. The matter proceeded to a videoconference hearing on March 9, 2026.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

8The issue before me is whether the conditions that caused Odin to be taken into, or kept in, the care of the Respondent have ceased to exist, and if so, whether he should be returned to the Applicant.

RESULT

9For the reasons that follow, I find that the conditions that caused Odin to be kept in care of the Respondent have not ceased to exist. Accordingly, Odin should not be returned to the Applicant.

ANALYSIS

10Section 31(1) of the PAWS Act states that an animal welfare inspector may remove an animal in critical distress in order to prevent serious injury or to preserve life.⁴

11Section 38(4) of the PAWS Act provides that an owner or custodian of an animal that has been kept in, or taken into, the CAWI’s care may apply to the Board by notice in writing to have the animal returned if the conditions that caused the animal to be taken into, or kept in, the CAWI’s care have ceased to exist.

12In this matter, the burden is on the Applicant to show that Odin should be returned to him because the conditions that led Odin to be taken into and kept in the care of the CAWI have ceased to exist.

The Death of Cloud

13The Applicant said that he has owned Odin for approximately 5 years and that he obtained him as a companion for Cloud.

14The Applicant testified that he was painting his apartment and opened the balcony door for ventilation. He said Cloud ran from the living room out to the balcony and slipped and subsequently fell twenty-four stories to his death.

15The Applicant said he immediately went to retrieve Cloud at ground level and was confronted by another person. After returning to his apartment, he placed Cloud in a gym bag, and he “passed-out” on a sofa.

16The Applicant said he woke after several hours; however, later in his testimony, the Applicant said that the TPS woke him when six officers came into his apartment. The Applicant stated that he was arrested for obstruction of justice for failing to provide information/details about an individual alleged to be with him in his apartment around the time of Cloud’s fall. He said that the police removed him from the apartment and allowed him to return approximately 24 hours later.

17The Respondent led evidence relating to the DTK that includes a statement made by the TPS to the AWS at the time of Odin’s removal. In that statement, the TPS advised AWS that the Applicant told the TPS he was holding onto Cloud when the cat leapt from his arms off the balcony.⁵

18The Applicant said that he did not tell the TPS that Cloud jumped from his arms.

19AWS Regional Supervisor Bandon James testified that he has been involved in animal welfare related matters for twenty years and stated, “In my experience, cats who are used to balcony settings do not just fall off…”

20I find the evidence concerning Cloud’s balcony fall contradictory and unsubstantiated because neither party’s evidence is corroborated by witness accounts. The Respondent’s evidence that Cloud was in the arms of the Applicant when he jumped conflicts with that of the Applicant, who said Cloud ran from the apartment onto the balcony before slipping off to his death.

21I find further that Cloud’s fall from jumping or slipping could have been prevented had the balcony been enclosed or made inaccessible.

Odin’s removal and the Decision to Keep

22The Respondent said that Odin was in critical distress when they removed him. They stated that intervention was necessary to prevent serious injury or preserve life given the circumstances around Cloud’s death, and that the Applicant was arrested and detained for an unspecified amount of time and did not have any plan for Odin’s care while he was out of his apartment.

23The Applicant said that he did not believe that Odin was in distress when he was removed. He said Odin has been living with him for five years. He added that he has experience with animals, having had dogs in his youth.

24When asked by the Respondent about annual shots or vaccinations, referring to the Application that states that Odin is fully vaccinated, the Applicant said that he had taken Odin to a veterinarian “a few years ago”, but provided no evidence to support this statement. He also acknowledged that Odin was overdue for a rabies shot, which was last administered by the Toronto Humane Society (THS) in 2022, as shown in a THS invoice provided by the Applicant with his Application.

25The Applicant said that he did not take Odin to a veterinarian every year, adding that he did not show any signs of poor health, and so he did not see the need to take him to the veterinarian.

26The Applicant said he has only used THS for Odin and has no relationship with any veterinarian, stating that THS is the only veterinarian service he felt he could trust.

27The Respondent asked the Applicant whether he knew of veterinarians other than the THS. The Applicant said that he was unaware of other veterinarian care. He said if there were alternatives for veterinarian services, he would have “looked into it” but that he “was not given any options”. He also stated that he has several cat-owning friends, and in the five years he has owned Odin, he has never discussed veterinarian services with these people.

28The Respondent led evidence about Odin’s health that is the result of veterinarian examinations following his removal, and which supports the DTK. The health issues vary in severity and include: a high body condition score of 7/9 indicating he is overweight, an irregular heartbeat (murmur), an upper respiratory infection, oral disease requiring teeth extractions, allergies, and infected ears.

29When asked by the Respondent about the details in the DTK, the Applicant said he had had seen the document but had not made any arrangements for Odin’s care if he were returned. The Applicant added that he will take Odin to a veterinarian when returned to him and that he “intends to make him healthy.”

30I find the Applicant’s statement that he was not aware of veterinary services other than THS implausible. The Applicant has had animals at other times in his life, has owned Odin for at least five years, and Cloud was also in his possession for a period before Odin was obtained. His statement that THS is the only service he could trust implies that he is aware of other veterinary services.

31I find further that the Applicant has not planned for active veterinary care to address Odin’s array of health issues if returned to him. The Applicant has been in possession of the DTK and was therefore aware of Odin’s health issues, which are not new, and has not contacted AWS prior to the hearing to discuss Odin’s health and any specific veterinary needs or a care plan for Odin. Further, the Applicant has not contemplated any barriers or access control to the balcony.

CONCLUSION

32For an application to be successful, the Applicant must demonstrate that the conditions that led to the animal being taken into, or being kept in, the Respondent’s care have ceased to exist. The Applicant has not satisfied his burden to prove that the conditions have ceased to exist.

33The circumstances that lead to Cloud’s death are of minimal weight in this decision. This case is not about Cloud. There are no witnesses to confirm or refute the evidence about how Cloud came to fall twenty-four stories to his death. The relevant issue is that the fall was preventable. The Appellant expressed no concerns with Odin potentially being on the balcony and gave no indication that he had considered or contemplated preventing access to the balcony or enclosing it. The risk that existed for Cloud remains for Odin and is a condition that has not ceased to exist.

34I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments that he will provide Odin with necessary or appropriate veterinary care. There is no record of him taking Odin to a veterinarian since 2022. The Applicant has not planned or prepared for Odin’s return by investigating, confirming or researching veterinary services including THS with whom he is familiar and who could provide the care Odin requires. Odin’s less than optimal health is a condition that existed before he was removed and has not ceased to exist

35I find that Odin requires ongoing medical care for the numerous health issues discovered upon his examination. I find that the care he requires is more appropriately handled by the Respondent, whose evidence also shows that Odin’s weight and heart murmur have not yet improved. To return Odin to the Applicant would be returning him to an environment of distress which the Board may not order.

36In this application I find the Applicant has not demonstrated that the conditions that led to Odin being taken into, and kept in, the CAWI’s care have ceased to exist.

ORDER

37Pursuant to the powers of the Board under section 38(9) of the PAWS Act, I decline to make an order to return Odin to the Applicant.

Footnotes

1. 1Section 60 of the PAWS Act provides that subject to the regulations, a police officer may exercise the powers of an animal welfare inspector under section 31.
2. 2Section 1(1) of the PAWS Act defines critical distess as “distress that requires immediate intervention in order to prevent seious injury or preserve life.”
3. 3I note that the Applicant checked Part 3 of the application form that is for revocation of an order. The Applicant is applying for the return of the animal pursuant to s.38(4) of the PAWS Act
4. 4Part 1 and s. 31(1)(b)(ii) of the PAWS Act.
5. 5The Board can accept hearsay evidence under s.15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.s22s