The
PCA Act
says healthy animals must not be seized and even sick animals can be
left onsite and improvements made to the care and site.
Leaving animals onsite is sometimes far more humane than moving them.
If animals are
seized, "seizure costs" can be demanded by the SPCA.
Return to SPCA Seizures
lead page
Regina vs Ann Brown:
Provincial Court of British Columbia,
Surrey, BC, May 25, 2000, file number 104289
Memorandum of Decision
Judge N.G. MacDonald, after excluding the
evidence, acquitted Ms Brown and her horses were returned to her.
From court transcript lines 34 to 41: Judge MacDonald says,
"...instead of contacting the owner to give the owner an opportunity
to relieve the distress in the animals, the officers went to the
Justice of the Peace under Section 13 of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act and sought and obtained a warrant based on the
Information to Obtain the Warrant."
This is precisely what the SPCA has done in many more
recent cases. It has obtained the warrant without first giving the
owner an "Offence Warning Notice and without permitting the owner to
take steps to relieve the alleged distress.
|
Cover page:
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-cover.pdf |
Page 1.
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-1.pdf |
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-2.pdf
Page 2. Lines 34 - 41: "...instead of contacting the
owner to give the owner an opportunity to relieve the distress in
the animals, the officers went to a Justice of the Peace under
Section 13 of the PCA act and sought and obtained a warrant based on
the Information to Obtain a Warrant based on the information which
has been marked as Exhibit 4 in these proceedings." |
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-3.pdf
Page 3. Lines 2 - 9: "They then use the search warrant to
seize, I believe, nine horses, a number of horses in any event.
They take them into their custody, and over the course of time, they
feed them and take care of them. Some later die*(a), but the
issue is, with respect to the search warrant, did they comply with
the prerequisites for obtaining a search warrant?"Lines 43 -
47: The issue, as I see it, is whether or not they were required
under the Act to make some attempt to contact the owner. I
believe they were. Under Section 11(b), that is the alternate
situation, it says that basically where you ..."(cont'd on page 4)
|
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-4.pdf
Page 4. Lines 1 - 20: "...cannot find the owner immediately,
and inform them of the distress, then you can go ahead and apply for
your warrant. It is implied in that, in my view, that under
sub-section (a), you must make an attempt to contact the owner and
advise them of the animal's distress and it is only then, that if
they do not; that is , the owner person responsible for the animal,
does not properly take steps that will relieve its distress, that
you could then go and apply for a warrant.*(b) The
officers did not do that. The Act clearly does not give the officers
the right to go out and apply for warrants to seize any animals they
happen to find in distress, wherever they may be. Their first
obligation is to try to find the owners, to try to relieve the
distress of the animal through the owner, and only if that does not
work or if they cannot find the owner do they then have the right to
go and apply for a search warrant. " |
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-5.pdf
Page 5. Lines 1 - 8: "Now, having found that the warrant was
improperly issued, the search therefore, without an authorized
search warrant, was, in my view, unreasonable as defined by the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A person has a right to be
free from unreasonable search and seizure. The remedies are
set out in Section 24(2) of the Charter." 24 (2) Where, in
proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence
was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or
freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded
if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances,
the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the
administration of justice into disrepute.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
|
Page 6.
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-6.pdf |
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-7.pdf
Page 7. Lines 3 - 6:
"Again, while it is highly
suspicious as to how those TV crews happened to arrive there, the
S.P.C.A. officers denied that they tipped them off."
*(c) |
Page 8.
Regina-vs-Ann-Brown-8.pdf |
|
* (a) This is the evidence that
backs the rumours that the SPCA neglected some of Brown's horses to
death. That may shock or surprise some, but not anyone who has
investigated the SPCA or does real animal welfare against all the
obstacles the SPCA puts in the way. For decades the SPCA has hired
animal disposers for its pet recycling business who are so ignorant
of simple animal husbandry knowledge that they can't tell dog breeds
apart, misinterpret dog behaviour (for which it now has a test to
back its ignorance), can't recognize or treat common diseases, have
no idea of animals social needs - even recommending to potential
purchasers of dogs with separation anxiety that the dog be kept
outside, thereby inflicting gross cruelty on the dog, making it
miserable because of social isolation and possibly turning it into a
dangerous dog (which it will then kill if it gets the dog back). For
just one example see Willy's Happy Ending (soon).
*(b) The SPCA is still first getting the warrant and then
going and seizing...without giving the owner, even if available, a
chance to make the improvements the SPCA says are necessary.
Worse...it even prevents owners from taking any steps to try
to comply with the SPCA, which often does not even tell the owner
why their animals are being seized. And it breaks the PCA Act when
it seizes healthy animals. See our proof at
SPCA Seizures.
*(c) The SPCA, with a gang of police and chosen vets, has
many times barged into people's homes, TV camera's rolling and
reporters in tow. Then it denies - even in sworn testimony -
that it has tipped off the media. The media obligingly helps the
SPCA to make monsters out of innocent people who are actually being
bullied and abused by the SPCA. In one instance, video supplied by
the SPCA to television stations, showed severely neglected dogs from
one seizure while airing a newscast of a second seizure made of
healthy dogs. This
footage was shown many times for over a year. The SPCA also, for a
year on its website, juxtaposed photos of the severely neglected
dogs from the first seizure with references to the second
breeder's healthy dogs.
See the Graham Seizure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|