Appeals under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13
Between:
Joshua Van Ham
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Rocco Iamello, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant Joshua Van Ham, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kelly Fan, Counsel
Heard orally during Case Conference: June 10, 2026
BACKGROUND
1Joshua Van ham, the Appellant, was the owner of 11 dogs. These animals were removed from the Appellant’s care and taken into the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Respondent. The Respondent subsequently decided to keep the animals in its care and issued a Statement of Account (SOA) to the Appellant.
2A Decision to Keep in Care (DTK) was issued to the Appellant on May 13, 2026.
3A SOA was issued to the Appellant on May 14, 2026, in the amount of $6058.61.
4On June 2, 2026, the Appellant appealed the DTK (18738/ACRB) and the SOA (17837/ACRB) to the Animal Care Review Board (Board), however these appeals were not filed within the statutory timelines.
5The Appellant’s animals were forfeited to the Crown on June 6, 2026, due to non-payment of the SOA.
6On June 10, 2026, a case conference was held in these matters. The Appellant’s motion was heard during the case conference.
MOTION
7On June 2, 2026, the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion requesting the Board provide additional time to accept the appeals. The totality of the submissions provided by Joshua Van Ham state:
“I would like the board to consider the extension for the decision to keep and the statement off account appeals in the motion I filed as I thought in Canada you only have to appeal something if you lose the first case. Also, the respondent seemed it was fair only to ask me about the statement of account and decision to keep appeals today after the deadline passed. Where is the courtesy to remind the appellant, the date is coming up as I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how these things work. There is no due process here, especially with the respondent’s lawyer already claiming victory.”
RESULT
8The Appellant’s motion is dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
9The Appellant stated that he is not familiar with the Rules of Procedure and relied on the Respondents counsel to provide deadlines.
10Rule 15.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Rules of Procedure requires parties to file a Notice of Motion that includes the decision or order that the party is requesting from the Board and all evidence in support of the motion.
A party bringing a motion shall deliver a Notice of Motion setting out:
a) The decision or order that the party is requesting from the Tribunal.
b) The grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory or regulatory provision, Rule or case law relied on;
c) The evidence in support of the motion; and
d) The proposed format of the motion.
11In the motion submission, the Appellant is requesting an extension of time beyond the statutory requirements for the appeals to be filed with the Board.
12Appeals to the Board must be filed by animal owners/custodians within ten (10) business days after being served by Animal Welfare Services.
13Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act. (PAWS)
Appeal to Board
38 (1) An owner or custodian of an animal may appeal any of the following to the Board:
An order from an animal welfare inspector.
A decision by an animal welfare inspector to remove an animal from a place.
A decision to keep an animal in or take an animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care.
A statement of account.
Prescribed time to appeal
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be made by notice in writing and must be made within the prescribed period after being served the order, notice of decision or statement of account, as the case may be.
14Ontario Regulation 447/19 states the following:
Prescribed period for making appeal
- For the purposes of subsection 38 (2) of the PAWS Act, 10 business days is the prescribed period of time for making an appeal to the Board.
15The Board also does not have authority to extend the prescribed period for making an appeal.
16The Board cannot grant the remedy sought by the Appellant because he filed appeals after the prescribed time permitted for doing so.
17The issuance of the SOA triggered a process that led to the forfeiture of the dogs to the Crown. A statement of account must be appealed within 10 business days from the date of service or paid within 15 business days from the date of service (see s. 1(1) and s. 3 of Ministerial Prescriptions, O. Reg. 447/19, made under the PAWS Act). If an owner does not appeal the statement of account in accordance with the prescribed time period or fails to pay the amount within the prescribed time period, their animal is forfeited to the Crown (s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act).
18The Appellant ceased to have any rights of ownership or possession of the dogs due to the forfeiture. Once forfeiture occurred on June 6, 2026, the dogs became the property of the Crown and the Appellant ceased to have any rights of ownership of them.
19The Divisional Court explained in Guillaume v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 that a person’s legal status as owner changes when an animal is forfeited to the Crown and that under s. 63(1) of the PAWS Act, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector is then authorized to deal with the animal as if they were the owner.
ORDER
20For all these reasons, the Appellant’s motion is dismissed.
21The case conference continuation scheduled June 29, 2026, is no longer required therefore I vacate that scheduled day.
22The files are closed.
Released: June 15, 2026
___________________________
Rocco Iamello
Member