The PCA Act seems to say, in brief, that the SPCA may retain custody of an animal despite the fact that the owner has paid the costs incurred by the SPCA and in spite of the owner asking for the animal to be returned. AAS is not able to interpret the Act with any certainty but will be asking for a legal opinion for confirmation and will post that opinion here.

PCA Act: Section 25: Order of Custody

(1) An authorized agent may apply to the Supreme Court for an order of custody of an animal in respect of which a charge has been laid under Section 24.

(2) An applicant under subsection (1) may retain custody of an animal in respect of which the application is made pending the outcome of any proceedings under Section 24, despite the fact that the owner of the animal

(a) has paid the costs incurred by the Society for which the owner is liable under Section 20, and

(b) has requested the authorized agent to return the animal.

On what set of criteria does the SPCA base its decision to allow owners so neglectful of their animals that their animals had to be seized, to have them back or not?

Does not giving custody of animals back to the owners make it difficult to know what to do if a court finds the owner guilty of cruelty as charged? Will the SPCA then demand the animals back?

We understand that the SPCA can use the $11,000 in impound fees. Is ability to pay one of the criteria?

More importantly, will the SPCA be in a position to make a recommendation to Crown that Crown ask the Justice to impose a penalty that prohibits the owning of any animals by the convicted animal owner for a future period of time, after the SPCA itself has returned the animals to the convicted person, or might the fact that the SPCA already has demonstrated trust in the convicted owner make it impossible for the SPCA to ask for a prohibition on owning animals?

If the SPCA does not particularly want to prohibit Marcie Ryan from owning dogs for a future period and so is unconcerned what might be the effect on the court of its decision to return Ryan's dogs to her, how severe must conditions of neglect be for the SPCA to care enough to refuse to return animals to the accused? If the severity of the conditions at Ryan's pupppymill and the considerable length of time that Ryan kept dogs in these conditions are not bad enough to warrant the SPCA wanting a prohibition on ownership, what conditions do warrant that?