Terry Peterson v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 232

Date: 05/12/2026

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

Between:

Terry Peterson Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

MOTION DECISION AND ORDER

Order Made By: Ziba Heydarian, Vice-Chair

For the Appellant: Terry Peterson, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Yun (Alice) Liu, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: March 17, 2026

INTRODUCTION

1Terry Peterson, the Appellant, is the owner of three dogs. The dogs were removed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) on December 9, 2025, pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, SO 2019, c 13 (PAWS Act). The Notice of Removal (NOR) issued to the Appellant indicated that the ground for removal was a failure to comply with an order that was issued to the Appellant by AWS on November 4, 2025.

2On December 10, 2025, AWS issued to the Appellant a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $11,966.20 pursuant to s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act. The SOA reflected the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s (Respondent/CAWI) costs of caring for the three dogs.

3The Appellant appealed the NOR to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on December 22, 2025 (Board File No 18137/ACRB). On the same date, the Appellant also appealed the SOA (Board File No. 18138/ACRB), and a related Decision to Keep the Animals in Care (DTK) (Board File No. 18139/ACRB).

4Ultimately, the Board dismissed the appeal of the SOA (18138/ACRB) and the appeal of the Decision to Keep (18139/ACRB) on January 27, 2026, as the Appellant did not perfect these two appeals.

5The appeal of the NOR (18137/ACRB) proceeded to a videoconference hearing on March 17, 2025.

Motion to Dismiss

6On March 9, 2026, the Respondent filed a motion seeking an order to dismiss the NOR appeal of the NOR on the grounds that the Board has no jurisdiction once animals have forfeited, and the appeal was moot as there was no live controversy affecting the parties’ rights. The basis for this request was that the dogs had been forfeited to the Crown on January 6, 2026, pursuant to s. 35(4)(a) of the PAWS Act because the Appellant did not:

1. Appeal the SOA within the prescribed time period of 10 business days; and
2. Pay the SOA within the prescribed time period of 15 business days.

7At the outset of the NOR hearing, the Board heard this motion brought by the Respondent seeking an order that the Board dismiss the appeal because it was outside of the Board’s jurisdiction and also moot as there was no live issue requiring an answer.

ISSUE

8The issue on this motion is whether the Board can hear the Appellant’s appeal of the NOR given that the dogs were forfeited to the Crown on January 6, 2026.

RESULT

9The Appellant’s appeal of the NOR is dismissed, as the dogs were forfeited to the Crown. As a result of forfeiture, the Board has no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief of returning the dogs because the Appellant no longer has any ownership rights over them, and furthermore the appeal is moot.

BACKGROUND

10On November 4, 2025, various AWS inspectors inspected the Appellant’s property and issued an order pursuant to s. 30(1) of the PAWS Act. The order required the dogs to be seen by a veterinarian and environmental conditions at the Appellant’s home to be improved. On December 9, 2025, Inspector MacDonald re-attended the property and decided to remove the Appellant’s three dogs pursuant to s. 31(1)(c) of the PAWS Act on the basis that she had not complied with the order, and no adequate shelter had been provided for the outdoor dogs.

11The dogs were taken to a veterinary hospital and tested positive for Lyme and heartworm disease. On December 10, 2025, AWS issued the SOA to the Appellant for the costs of care for the three dogs. On December 12, 2025, AWS also issued a DTK to the Appellant for the animals.

12On December 22, 2025, the Appellant emailed the Board a Notice of Appeal, and three files were opened bearing Board File Nos. 18137, 18138, and 18139/ACRB. However, the Appellant’s correspondence was incomplete and the Appellant was informed that additional information was required to perfect the appeals, including completion of a Notice of Appeal (NOA) form for each instrument. The Board did not receive the requested information and sent all three matters to a case conference held on January 8, 2026.

13Following the case conference, on January 12, 2026, the Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss both the SOA appeal 18138/ACRB and the DTK appeal 18139/ACRB. The deadline for submissions in response to the NOID was January 19, 2025. The Respondent made submissions stating that the Appellant had not satisfied s. 38(5) of the PAWS Act, as she did not provide the grounds or remedy sought for each appeal. The Appellant made no submissions in response to the NOID.

14Accordingly, on January 27, 2026, the Board issued an order dismissing 18138/ACRB and 18139/ACRB (Dismissal Order) because the statutory requirements for bringing both appeals were not met. The Dismissal Order scheduled a case conference continuation for the NOR appeal 18137/ACRB on February 3, 2026.

15On February 3, 2026, the case conference for 18137/ACRB was held, and on February 6, 2026, the Board issued a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO). In the CCRO, the Board states that it may initiate further correspondence with the parties on 18138/ACRB. The Respondent submits that there was no further correspondence from the Appellant or the Board in relation to 18138/ACRB and the file for the SOA appeal was closed subsequent to the Dismissal Order.

16As there was no appeal of the SOA in accordance with s. 38 of the PAWS Act, payment of the full amount owing was due on January 5, 2026, 15 business days from the date of service. No payment was received by AWS on or before this date.

ANALYSIS

17In filing her appeal of the NOR, the Appellant was seeking a return of the dogs as a remedy. However, I find that the Board has no authority to order the return of the dogs in these circumstances, as they were forfeited to the Crown and the Appellant no longer has any rights of ownership over them.

18The powers of the Board are set out in s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act. Under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Board can order that an animal that has been removed be returned to the owner or custodian. However, in matters where the animal has been forfeited to the Crown, the Board does not have jurisdiction and, in this matter, the three dogs have been forfeited as the SOA was not paid or appealed within the applicable prescribed timelines pursuant to the PAWS Act.

19The Respondent further argued that the appeal of the removal is moot as there is no live controversy affecting the parties rights, and no special circumstances to warrant hearing the appeal of the NOR.

20The Respondent’s motion materials included an affidavit of Inspector Kathleen MacDonald, which established the following:

(a) The Appellant was served with the SOA on December 10, 2025 and this was established by the certificate of service attached to the affidavit.

(b) The Appellant did not appeal the SOA within the statutory 10-day period.

(c) The Appellant did not pay the SOA within the statutory 15-day period, which expired on January 5, 2026.

(d) The dogs were forfeited to the Crown on January 6, 2026.

21The Appellant did not challenge the substance of Inspector MacDonald’s affidavit or make any submissions regarding non-payment of the SOA.

22The Respondent argues, and I agree, that once an animal is forfeited to the Crown by statutory action pursuant to s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act, the animal becomes property of the Crown and the Crown is authorized to deal with the animal as if they were the owner (Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782). No action is needed to finalize the process; the forfeiture occurs automatically and the prescribed timelines are important, all of which have passed in this case.

23In addition, the Ontario Court of Appeal found 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).

24While I sympathize with the difficult position that the Appellant faces, the Board does not have jurisdiction to deal with forfeiture as it is not part of the Board’s legislative powers under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act. I accept the Respondent’s argument that forfeiture is irreversible and therefore allowing the appeal of the NOR to proceed would not lead to the return of the dogs even if the Appellant were to succeed in her appeal.

25The doctrine of mootness as set out in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342, also applies here and in states that a decision-maker may decline to decide a case that presents no “live controversy” affecting parties rights. This requires a two-part analysis to first determine if the dispute has disappeared, and second to decide whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case based on the rationales set out on Barowski, namely:

i. The presence of an adversarial context; ii. The concern for judicial economy; and iii. The need for the Court to be sensitive to its role as the adjudicative branch in our political framework.

26For this second-part of the analysis, the onus is on the party seeking to have the moot issue heard to convince the decision-maker to make an exception to the general rule that it will not hear moot appeals.

27The Appellant provided no reason to persuade me that the Board should exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal. I accept the Respondent’s argument that in this case there is no adversarial context, no uncertainty in the law regarding forfeiture, and lastly the Board should not expend scarce resources to hear this moot appeal.

28In a matter where forfeiture occurs because of a failure to appeal or pay a SOA within the statutory deadlines, the Board does not have any further remedy available to it with respect to a return and the Appeal is moot.

Conclusion

29I find that the Board has no power to order the return of the dogs to the Appellant because they are now property of the Crown. The legal implications of forfeiture mean that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and the appeal is moot as there is no live controversy affecting the parties rights, with no special circumstances to warrant hearing the appeal of the NOR.

ORDER

30The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the NOR (Board File No. 18137) is granted.

31The NOR appeal is dismissed as the Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of the dogs following forfeiture and there are no exceptional reasons to hear the moot appeal.

32The file is closed.