Forfeiture of Amanals in Care (AWS)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-26
CLNP Page ID:	2395
Page Categories:	[Animal Control (POA & ACRB)]
Citation:	Forfeiture of Amanals in Care (AWS), CLNP 2395, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-26
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/07/24

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13

35 (1) The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may, from time to time, serve on the owner or custodian of an animal a statement of account respecting any costs incurred in relation to the animal if the costs were incurred in relation to any of the following circumstances:

1. An animal welfare inspector has taken steps to relieve the animal’s distress, which may include providing it with necessaries to relieve its distress under section 33.

2. An animal welfare inspector has removed the animal from the place where it was under subsection 31 (1) or (2).

3. The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector has kept the animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 31 (6) or taken the animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 44 (8). 2023, c. 12, Sched. 6, s. 8 (1).

...

(3) An owner or custodian who receives a statement of account under subsection (1) is, subject to an order made under subsection 38 (9), liable for the amount specified in the statement. 2019, c. 13, s. 35 (3).

(4) Subject to any agreement made under subsection (5), the animal is forfeited to the Crown if,

(a) the owner or custodian does not appeal the statement of account in accordance with section 38 and fails to pay the stated amount within a prescribed period of time after being served the statement of account; or

(b) the owner or custodian appealed the statement of account in accordance with section 38 but failed to pay the confirmed or varied amount within a prescribed period of time after the Board provided notice of its decision. 2019, c. 13, s. 35 (4); 2023, c. 12, Sched. 6, s. 8 (2, 3).

(5) Before the expiry of the relevant time period set out in clause (4) (a) or (b), the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector may enter into a written agreement with the owner or custodian to extend the time for payment or reduce the amount that is to be paid, or both. 2019, c. 13, s. 35 (5).

...

63 (1) If an animal, other than a prohibited animal, is forfeited to the Crown in right of Ontario under this Act, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector shall take the animal into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care and shall have the authority to deal with the animal as if the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector were the owner.

Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 89 (CanLII)

[45] Based on the evidence filed in this motion, I find that all the cats removed from the Appellant’s custody on May 10, June 15, June 21, and August 2, 2023, and identified in the return application, being the animals listed in Appendix A of SOA#6, were forfeited to the Crown on the dates set out in paragraph [39] above, by operation of s.35(4)(b) of the PAWS Act following the non-payment of SOAs by the prescribed deadline.

[46] On a s.38(4) application, an “owner or custodian” may apply for the return of animals and s.38(9) of the PAWS Act authorizes the Board to order animals “be returned to the owner or custodian” following a hearing.

[47] A person’s legal status as owner or custodian of animals changes when those animals are forfeited to the Crown. The Divisional Court held that once forfeiture occurs, “the previous owner/custodian ceases to have any rights of ownership or possession over the animals” Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 (CanLII), at para.9. The legal implication of forfeiture was also considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal which declined to grant a stay of the Board’s decision upholding a SOA because it was impossible to make an order unwinding forfeiture: Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board) 2024 ONCA 89 (CanLII) at para.9.

[48] I find that none of the cats identified in the return application were owned by the Appellant when she filed her return application because they had been forfeited to the Crown prior to the filing of that return application.

[49] The Board cannot prevent, stay, or reverse the operation of the forfeiture provision of the PAWS Act.

[50] The forfeiture of the cats removed the Board’s jurisdiction to hear a return application, the Board has no authority to order the return of any of the cats to the Appellant who, by operation of the forfeiture provision of the PAWS Act, is the previous owner/custodian of those cats.