Recovery of a Seized Aminal (POA)

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

15 (1) No person shall cause an animal to be in distress.

...

44 (1) An animal welfare inspector who is lawfully in any place may, without a warrant, seize any animal or thing that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe,

(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence under this Act;

(b) has been used in the commission of an offence under this Act;

(c) will afford evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act; or

(d) is intermixed with a thing referred to in clause (a), (b) or (c).

...

(6) An animal welfare inspector who has seized an animal or thing under this section shall comply with the requirements of section 158.2 of the Provincial Offences Act.

(7) Any animal or thing seized and not forfeited under this section shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized if,

(a) a charge is not laid at the conclusion of the investigation; or

(b) a charge is laid but, when the charge is finally disposed of, the defendant is acquitted or the charge is dismissed or withdrawn.

Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33

159 (1) When, under paragraph 3 of subsection 158.2 (2), a thing that has been seized is brought before a justice or a report in respect of it is made to a justice, he or she shall, by order,

(a) detain the thing or direct it to be detained in the care of a person named in the order; or

(b) direct it to be returned. 2002, c. 18, Sched. A, s. 15 (5); 2006, c. 19, Sched. B, s. 15 (3).

(1.0.1) A direction to return seized items does not take effect for 30 days and does not take effect during any application made or appeal taken in respect of the thing. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (61).

(1.1) The justice may, in the order,

(a) authorize the examination, testing, inspection or reproduction of the thing seized, on the conditions that are reasonably necessary and are directed in the order; and

(b) make any other provision that, in his or her opinion, is necessary for the preservation of the thing. 2002, c. 18, Sched. A, s. 15 (5).

(2) Nothing shall be detained under an order made under subsection (1) for a period of more than three months after the time of seizure unless, before the expiration of that period,

(a) upon motion, a justice is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the investigation, its further detention for a specified period is warranted and he or she so orders; or

(b) a proceeding is instituted in which the thing detained may be required. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 159 (2).

(3) Upon the motion of the defendant, prosecutor or person having an interest in a thing detained under subsection (1), a justice may make an order for the examination, testing, inspection or reproduction of any thing detained upon such conditions as are reasonably necessary and directed in the order. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 159 (3).

(4) Upon the motion of a person having an interest in a thing detained under subsection (1), and upon notice to the defendant, the person from whom the thing was seized, the person to whom the search warrant was issued and any other person who has an apparent interest in the thing detained, a justice may make an order for the release of any thing detained to the person from whom the thing was seized where it appears that the thing detained is no longer necessary for the purpose of an investigation or proceeding. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 159 (4).

(5) Where an order or refusal to make an order under subsection (3) or (4) is made by a justice of the peace, an appeal lies therefrom in the same manner as an appeal from a conviction in a proceeding commenced by means of a certificate. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 159 (5).

Brock (Township) v. White, 2007 CarswellOnt 6972

APPLICATION by dog owners to quash ex parte order that dogs be kept in pound pending decision on township's application to have dogs destroyed, and for order returning dogs to them.

...

16 The Dog Owner's Liability Act does not specify a time limit for detention of seized. Again, I agree with the Crown's submission that when a specific provincial act, like the Dog Owner's Liability Act, is silent on an issue, the Provincial Offences Act applies by default.

17 The Provincial Offences Act provides for a maximum detention of three months for seized items, unless the warrant or court order provides otherwise. If the hearing in this matter proceeds on September 13 th , 2007, that is within three months from the seizure of the dogs.

...

19 However, it's simply unfair that a person's property can be seized without notice, and that the person has no means to promptly object to the seizure and request return of his property.

20 This may be even more true with respect to the seizure of a dog. Many people are very attached to their dogs, and dogs are often an important part of peoples' lives, often regarded as members of the family.

21 In the present case, the owners have never had the opportunity to object to seizure of their dogs. While the hearing of the Township's application is scheduled for September 13 th , 2007, the presiding Justice of the Peace may not make an order that day, or the hearing might not proceed that day for a variety of unknown reasons.

22 The Dog Owner's Liability Act does not appear to provide for interim review of an order that a dog be seized. No section of the Provincial Offences Act was pointed out to me that provided for such interim review.

23 In order to be fair, the owners of property, that is seized without notice to them, should have the opportunity for a review of any such seizure order.

24 The owner's notice of application, herein, asks for return of the dogs. Accordingly, I regard today's appearance before me as a review of the order made June 29 th , 2007.

25 The Township has notice of the owner's application and is represented today by counsel, and therefore, I found the Township is not prejudiced.

26 On the filed materials, including the transcript of the June 29 th , 2007 intake proceeding, before Justice of the Peace Griffiths, I'm satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for safety concerns, if the dogs were returned without conditions that strive to ensure safety of people, other than the owners.

27 I note as well that these dogs have never bitten anybody. Also, the owners are willing to take significant steps to ensure the safety of others.