Forfeiture of Amanals in Care (AWS): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Animal Control (POA & ACRB) {{Citation: | categories = [Animal Control (POA & ACRB)] | shortlink = }} ==Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 89 (CanLII)<ref name="Freeman"/>== [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 fo...") |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[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. | [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” <i>Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 (CanLII)</i><ref name="Guillaume"/>, 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: <i>Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board) 2024 ONCA 89 (CanLII) at para.9.<i | [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” <i>Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 (CanLII)</i><ref name="Guillaume"/>, 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: <i>Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board) 2024 ONCA 89 (CanLII) at para.9.</i><ref name="Windrift"/> | ||
[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. | [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. | <b><u>[49] The Board cannot prevent, stay, or reverse the operation of the forfeiture provision of the PAWS Act.</b></u> | ||
[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. | [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. | ||
Revision as of 02:56, 24 July 2024
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2395 |
| Page Categories: | [Animal Control (POA & ACRB)] |
| Citation: | Forfeiture of Amanals in Care (AWS), CLNP 2395, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2024/07/24 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 89 (CanLII)[1]
[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)[2], 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.[3]
[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.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 89 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k5gjw>, retrieved on 2024-07-23
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k0msh>, retrieved on 2024-07-23
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board), 2024 ONCA 89 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k2lq4>, retrieved on 2024-07-23
