Law360 Canada (May 7, 2026, 11:07 AM EDT) --

Daniel W. Dylan

A recent report by Global News, drawing on freedom-of-information materials obtained by Donna Power and the Humane Initiative, adds an important and deeply troubling dimension to concerns I raised several weeks ago about Ontario’s animal welfare regime.

In that earlier piece, I examined a decision of the Animal Care Review Board (ACRB) in which a six-figure cost recovery order, arising from the seizure of dozens of dogs in conditions of profound neglect, was reduced to a small fraction of its original amount. What appeared then to be a questionable exercise of administrative discretion now appears, in light of the data Power obtained, to be symptomatic of a deeper legal and structural failure.

According to the reporting, Ontario has charged more than $10.6 million since 2019 to individuals whose animals were seized by Animal Welfare Services. Of that amount, just over $1 million has ostensibly been collected. More than 90 per cent apparently remains outstanding. Solicitor General Michael Kerzner has indicated that he will investigate the issue. That response, while not insignificant, nevertheless underscores the extent to which this problem exists.

On the available data, this pattern of uncollected cost recovery is not simply administrative inefficiency. It raises a fundamental question about whether the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (PAWS Act) is operating in a manner consistent with its own legal purposes.

Cost recovery under the PAWS Act is compensatory in nature. Its purpose is to ensure that those who place animals in distress bear the costs associated with their care once the state intervenes. These statements of account are not fines. They are mechanisms designed to assign financial responsibility and to prevent the costs of neglect from being transferred to the public. That logic depends on implementation. When costs are neither imposed in full nor collected in practice, the statutory scheme begins to lose coherence.

The ACRB decision I previously examined in my February 2026 article illustrated one point of strain, namely the reduction of liability at the adjudicative stage. The data Power uncovered reveals another, which is the routine failure to enforce collection. Taken together, these are not isolated exercises of discretion. They point to a broader inability to give effect to the PAWS Act’s compensatory structure. That inability has direct implications for accountability as a legal concept.

In any regulatory regime, accountability depends on the predictable imposition of consequences. The PAWS Act provides several mechanisms to achieve this, including administrative orders, cost recovery and prosecution, which can lead to penal sanctions and prohibition orders. These mechanisms serve different but complementary functions. They address remediation, compensation and deterrence. If one or more of these mechanisms is not used or is ineffective, the integrity of the regime is compromised.

That concern is evident here. Sometimes in serious neglect cases, prosecutions are not pursued. Courts are therefore not engaged, and prohibition orders, which remain the most effective safeguard against recidivism, are not imposed. Administrative measures remain limited in duration and scope. Cost recovery, which should operate as a baseline form of accountability, is reduced and then largely uncollected. The result is not merely leniency. It is the absence of legally meaningful consequence.

It is important to acknowledge that not all debts can be recovered. Insolvency and lack of assets are real constraints. The province has also indicated that stronger collection tools have only recently become available. These considerations matter. They do not, however, explain a recovery rate of approximately 10 per cent. At that level, the issue is not only individual circumstance but systemic design and enforcement capacity.

The PAWS Act reflects a hybrid model that relies on administrative enforcement while preserving the possibility of prosecution in more serious cases. That model can function effectively, but only if each component operates as intended. If prosecutions are rare, administrative orders are limited and cost recovery is largely unrealized, the regime risks failing to meet its basic legal objectives. Those objectives are clear. They include protecting animals from distress, preventing future harm and ensuring that responsibility rests with those whose conduct necessitates state intervention. Each depends on the credible imposition of consequences.

Without consequences, accountability is diminished. Without accountability, deterrence weakens. Without deterrence, the law’s capacity to prevent harm is compromised.

The case I previously discussed suggested that accountability in Ontario’s animal welfare system was becoming attenuated, existing in form but weakened in practice. The province-wide data now suggests that this is not confined to individual decisions but reflects a broader pattern. If the PAWS Act is to function as more than an aspirational framework, its enforcement mechanisms must operate in practice. That objective may require clearer guidance on when prosecutions are expected, more consistent approaches to cost recovery and closer alignment between the different components of the regime.

Compassion and accountability are not in conflict. Accountability is how the law gives effect to its protective purpose. When it is absent, the consequences are not only financial. They are borne by the animals the statute is meant to protect and by a legal system that risks signalling that even serious neglect carries limited enforceable consequence.

Daniel W. Dylan is an associate professor at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law, Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ont. He teaches animal law, contract law, evidence law, intellectual property law and Indigenous knowledge governance.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@LexisNexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.