I can't answer for Myriam Brulot as to if she did or did not take her concerns to the SPCA Head Office and Douglas Brimacombe, but I do know that Myriam was responding to interactions she had with the Vancouver SPCA over a specific dog in Vancouver, and during this process she discovered that the SPCA was using the cicular argument that neglect was defined in the Act as a lack of food, water, or shelter, when in fact nelgect was not defined in the Act at all (leaving the SPCA free to define it). Lack of food, water and shelter is one definition of "distress" in the Act; nelgect is another definition of distress in the Act, so they are two different things not the same thing, as the SPCA had been falsely telling people for years.

Why would the SPCA tell a person compalining of a suffering animal that negelect was "a lack of food, water, and shelter" and since the animal being complained of had those three things there was "nothing the SPCA can do". Just for that very reason - telling people this falsehood meant that the SPCA didn't have to do anything! And it worked - beautifully, for decades. The Vancouver SPCA employees were busy carrying out dog disposal contracts - they didn't have time to waste on frivolous complaints of miserably suffering animals.

Again, I cannot speak for Myriam Brulot, but I can say that it is my opinion that the SPCA made little if any effort to do do any of the things it would have done if it seriously wanted cruelty prosecuted, such as: looking for a sympathetic prosecutor, educating that prosecutor, putting so many cases before the prosecutor that some make it to court and some get convictions. This is how law develops; it is called building case history.

The SPCA admitted as much at the meeting it held last summer and fall to discuss this and other issues. (See link below)