From the opinion, dated July 25:

There is no express provision in the Act which specifically states that the SPCA must return the seized animal to its owner if the owner has paid all costs of the seizure and made attempts to improve the conditions that the animal was living under.

The opinion goes on to say:

However, it can be inferred that, in including subsection 25(1), the legislature intended that in order for the SPCA to keep an animal in its custody permanently, the SPCA should apply to the Supreme Court for such an order.

AAS comment: Applying for an order of custody costs the SPCA money; keeping animals in custody (if not in foster homes) costs money. We are not privy to the reasons that the SPCA chooses to return some animals and not others, but in the two recent cases where seized animals have been returned to the owner, the Silvia Rutledge case in Maple Ridge where the SPCA seized 130 animals from her petting zoo, and the case of the puppy mill dogs seized from Chilliwack puppy miller karen Raffles, the SPCA was paid its seizure costs.