THE WATCHDOG

Transcript of the Linda Douglas/James Hill trial

Posted By: AAS
Date: Monday, 23 May 2005, at 11:42 a.m.

File No.: 38329-1

Registry: Vernon

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Before The Honourable Judge Brecknell)

Place of Hearing: Vernon, B.C.

Date of Hearing: February 23, 2004

REGINA
v
JAMES PAUL HILL and LINDA LOU DOUGLAS

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL

Crown Counsel: J.M. Kaay

Counsel for the Accused: D.A. Betton

WITNESSES FOR THE CROWN:

BRADLEY KUICH

In chief by Mr. Kaay on voir dire 3

Cross-exam by Mr. Betton on voir dire 38

Proceedings adjourned 66

EXHIBITS

ON VOIR DIRE

No. Description Page

1 Copy of notice of cruelty complaint dated February 25, 2003 11
2 Booklet containing eighteen photographs 24
3-11 Photograph with the number 11 on the back 25
4-10 Photograph with the number 10 on the back 26
5-9 Photograph with the number 9 on the back 26
6-8 Photograph with the number 8 on the back 26
7-7 Photograph with the number 7 on the back 26
8-6 Photograph with the number 6 on the back 27
9-5 Photograph with the number 5 on the back 27
10-4 Photograph with the number 4 on the back 27
11-3 Photograph with the number 3 on the back 28
12-2 Photograph with the number 2 on the back 28
13-1 Photograph with the number 1 on the back 28
14-12 Photograph with the number 12 on the back 29
15-13 Photograph with the number 13 on the back 29
16-14 Photograph with the number 14 on the back 29
17-15 Photograph with the number 15 on the back 30
18-16 Photograph with the number 16 on the back 30
19-17 Photograph with the number 17 on the back 30
20-18 Photograph with the number 18 on the back 30
21-19 Photograph with the number 19 on the back 31
22-20 Photograph with the number 20 on the back 31
23-21 Photograph with the number 21 on the back 31
24-22 Photograph with the number 22 on the back 31
25-23 Photograph with the number 23 on the back 32
26-24 Photograph with the number 24 on the back 32
27-25 Photograph with the number 25 on the back 32
28-11A Photograph with the number 11A on the back 33
29-10A Photograph with the number 10A on the back 33

EXHIBITS, cont.

ON VOIR DIRE

30-9A Photograph with the number 9A on the back 33
31-8A Photograph with the number 8A on the back 34
32-7A Photograph with the number 7A on the back 34
33-6A Photograph with the number 6A on the back 34
34-5A Photograph with the number 5A on the back 34
35-4A Photograph with the number 4A on the back 34
36-3A Photograph with the number 3A on the back 35
37-2A Photograph with the number 2A on the back 35
38-1A Photograph with the number 1A on the back 35
39 Two page exhibit report listing animals taken into custody dated March 27, 2003. 36

MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION

No. Description Page

A Photograph depicting creek 51
B-1 Photograph depicting two horses 53
B-2 Photograph depicting two horses and a collection of water 53
C-1 Photograph depicting horse with caption on the bottom right corner 53

Vernon, B.C.

February 23, 2004

MR. KAAY: Your Honour, Murray Kaay for the provincial Crown. We have a trial scheduled for this morning along with my friend, Mr. Betton, and that's the Hill/Douglas matter, two charges, one under the Criminal Code and one under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Crown has all its witnesses and we'll be ready to proceed today.
MR. BETTON: Yes, Your Honour, Betton, initials D.A., appearing with Mr. Hill and Ms. Douglas. Ms. Douglas is just outside. We're probably going to need just a moment or two for her to get here.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, if we could just have a few minutes? That would make sense, obviously, for my friend, but also I've had some discussions with one of the expert -- the Crown's expert witness, a veterinarian, and there's something I should advise my friend about as well.
THE COURT: We'll stand down for a few minutes, then. I take it now the prisoners are ready.
MR. KAAY: Mr. Pool is dealing with the in-custodies today, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

MR. KAAY: Thank you, Your Honour, for giving us that time. I've had some discussions with my friend and as a result of it, my friend has something to say about a possible Charter issue that may arise, Your Honour, and I'll let my friend address that.
MR. BETTON: Your Honour, it is late that I've alerted my friend to the possibility. To give you some -- there was a search warrant executed and on reflection there are some issues with respect to the information in support of the search warrant that I am now privy to partly as a result of an inquiry that had been made that my friend was able to answer -- I shouldn't say final. Give the final Crown information on this morning. And out of an abundance of caution, because I anticipate we may be arguing the search warrant was improperly issued, I've suggested to my friend that we should introduce the evidence on -- relevant to the issuance of the search warrant on a voir dire. The issue would be the sufficiency of the grounds and the accuracy of the information that was presented to the issuing Provincial Court judge.

At the end of that process I can say that it may or may not be an issue that the defence is in a position to advance, but I certainly didn't want to try to argue it after the fact. So there's that issue to be dealt with. I anticipate that we can call the voir dire, we get the witnesses' evidence in, in the whole, and depending on whether there is an argument, we can likely roll the evidence in without having to repeat anything. So I can certainly accommodate my friend in that respect. Also, this is -- these issues are just now being brought to my friend's attention and I certainly would agree that if, in the course of things an argument is being advanced, my friend requires some time to reflect on that, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to adjourning appropriately for that to happen.
THE COURT: The Crown content, then, that we declare a voir dire --
MR. KAAY: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: -- and take it from the top down?
MR. KAAY: And I was just going to tell my friend in terms of the chronology of the witnesses, the Crown had intended to call Special Constable Kuich and then Dr. Jacobson, a veterinarian, but because of the unfolding and because Ms. Woodward attends, she's an S.P.C.A. official as well, on a previous occasion prior to the execution of the search warrant, what I'll do then is I'll call Ms. Woodward as well because it would make sense, given my friend's application.
MR. BETTON: I should alert Your Honour to one other thing just so that you're aware. There is -- my friend is indicating they're calling one vet who attended on the date of the execution of the search warrant. There was a second vet who had become involved on the day of the search, but not at the farm, and had done an examination of the -- some of the animals and my friend has indicated it's not -- or it hadn't been the Crown's intention to call that witness and that witness is not in attendance today.

On review of the information, it certainly would appear to me that that information is going to be necessary and it would be our position that it ought to be -- that vet ought to be called as part of the Crown's case. It was an examination done on the day of the seizure and disclosed to us at that time. I haven't had an opportunity to speak to that vet. I'm going to do it. My friend and I may be able to find a way to expedite that and we may -- I may be seeking an opportunity to make that call during the course of the day, but we could conceivably run into some problems in how far the case goes depending on how we deal with that issue.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, first of all the Crown's going to ask Madam Clerk to confirm that pleas have been entered.
THE CLERK: That's correct. Both have entered not guilty pleas on October 15th.
MR. KAAY: And the Crown is asking that the order make an order -- the court make an order excluding witnesses.
THE COURT: Any persons subpoenaed or called to give evidence in these proceedings are to be excluded from the courtroom until such time as their testimony is required.
MR. KAAY: Thank you, Your Honour, and the Crown's first witness is Brad Kuich. Madam Clerk, Mr. Kuich will swear.

BRADLEY KUICH, a witness called for the Crown, sworn.

THE CLERK: Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record?
THE WITNESS: My name is Bradley Kuich. The last name is spelled K-U-I-C-H.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may sit down if you're more comfortable.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. KAAY ON VOIR DIRE:

Q Mr. Kuich, I understand that you are currently employed by the S.P.C.A. and you work out of the Kelowna, British Columbia, branch office.
A That's correct.
Q And that's the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?
A It is.
Q The B.C. branch?
A Yes, it is.
Q And you've been employed -- and I also understand that you're a Special Constable?
A Yes, I've been appointed as a Special Provincial Constable under the Police Act.
Q And you've been working as a Special Constable at the Kelowna office of the S.P.C.A. for the last three years?
A Approximately three years, yeah.
Q And prior to your employment with the S.P.C.A., I understand that you were a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for approximately twenty-two years.
A That's correct.
Q And your duties right now with the S.P.C.A. include investigating complaints of possible animal cruelty under the Criminal Code, as well as provincial legislation such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?
A That's correct.
Q And do you have any special training or experience in terms of looking at those types of cases in terms of animal management techniques or strategies?
A Nothing specific, no.
Q Are you familiar with protocols with respect to practice standards for animal management such as food, water or health care?
A Yes.
Q And did you conduct similar investigations during your service with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
A At times, yes.
Q And these investigations would involve domestic animals such as horses and dogs?
A Correct.
Q Livestock at all?
A Yes.
Q Such as cattle?
A Cattle, horses, yes.
Q Sir, I understand that in the course of your duties back on February 25th of 2003 you went to a property near Westwold, British Columbia.
A Yes.
Q And that was off of Highway 97?
A Correct.
Q Do you recall the address that you went to?
A 6629, I believe.
Q And do you recall what time of day you attended?
A Offhand, no, I don't. I would have to -- it was approximately 1:45 in the afternoon.
Q And did you attend by yourself or did you go with somebody else?
A No, I attended with Special Provincial Constable Woodward.
Q That's Kathy Woodward?
A Yes, Kathy Woodward.
Q And she works with you at the S.P.C.A. Kelowna office?
A That's correct.
Q And your reason for going to this property, sir, what was it?
A We had received concerns from the general public about the welfare of the animals at that property and we attended to speak to the owner and to do an inspection of the premise -- of the animals on the premises.
Q And when you say general public, can you be more specific?
A We'd received a complaint from a person. I can't recall the name at this time, but they had raised a concern about the animals on that particular property.
Q Did you make a note of that name anywhere?
A Yes, there was a complaint report that was filed. I didn't file it, but there was one on the file.
Q And you've maintained -- you've attended court here today, obviously, so you opened up a file in connection with this matter?
A Yes, we did.
Q And would that complaint report be included in that file?
A It would, yes.
Q Do you have the file with you here today?
A I have the file, yes.
MR. KAAY: With the court's leave, could the witness refer to the file, to the report, Your Honour?
MR. BETTON: No objection, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
A I'm sorry, Your Honour, I don't have that with me today.
Q So, sir, you attend at the property in the afternoon and what happens when you get there? Did you meet somebody?
A Yes, we attended the property and we were met at the front of the door of the -- at the front of the premises by a lady who identified herself as Linda Douglas.
Q Would you recognize Ms. Douglas if you saw her again?
A Yes, I would.
Q Can you look around the courtroom and indicate --
MR. BETTON: Identity is not in issue, Your Honour, for either Ms. Douglas or Mr. Hill.
THE COURT: Okay. For the record, she is where? Okay, thank you.
MR. BETTON: The lady there, and next to her is Mr. Hill.
MR. KAAY: Thank you.
Q Now, sir, had you ever been to -- I'll refer to it as the Douglas property. Had you been to the Douglas property before?
A No, I had not.
Q So she identifies herself and what do you do? Do you identify yourself?
A Yes, I was in uniform, S.P.C.A. uniform. I identified myself as an investigator with the B.C.S.P.C.A. I asked Ms. Douglas if she was the owner of the property. She said she was and that she was the caregiver for the dogs on the property.
Q Did you tell her why you were there?
A I told her that we had received a concern about the welfare of the animals on the premises, and I also asked her if we could conduct an inspection of the animals on the premises, and she agreed to it.
Q And how did she agree to it? What did she say?
A Just verbally she said, "Go ahead. Have a look around. Have a look at the dogs."
Q And what was the tone of this conversation?
A It was civil.
Q When you say civil, what do you mean by civil?
A Well, there was no yelling or screaming. There was -- you know, everybody was cooperative and complied to our requests.
Q And so I take it you conducted an inspection of the property.
A Yes.
Q And at the conclusion of the inspection, I understand that you provided Ms. Douglas with a notice.
A Yes, we did.
Q And this notice outlined -- was it basically a summary of your observations of the inspection?
A It was.
Q And you have a copy of that notice with you here today?
A I do have that with me.
Q Sir, I'm going to ask you to relate to His Honour what your findings were with respect to the inspection of the property.
A All right. When we attended the premises, it has the driveway going up to the house. We noticed a large number of small breed dogs. They were mostly mixed breed, a breed between probably Cocker Spaniels and Poodle crosses mostly. They were kept in large pens open to the elements. We noticed that the dogs were in the pens. There was a lot of debris in the pens, a lot of feces. It was dirty. The dogs were all -- appeared to be matted and dirty as well. A lot of the dogs -- I think all the dogs were shaking their heads which is an indicator that they may have some external parasites. The water for -- that was available to the dogs, the water was all frozen. It was a cold day. It was below freezing.

There was also a -- we could hear dogs inside the house. Ms. Douglas indicated that she was not going to bring the dogs out of the house for inspection. She said that she had just finished breeding them and didn't want --
Q I'm sorry, she just --
A She'd just finished breeding the dogs and didn't want to expose them to the cold elements. I also noticed a brown horse that was tied near the front of the house and it was extremely thin.
Q Now, in terms of -- you talked about small breed dogs. Do you recall how many dogs were present on the property?
A The dogs were all running about in the pens. It was hard to take an accurate count, but I would think that there was probably around forty -- thirty-five to forty dogs. There was also a couple of large breed dogs as well, one that was -- Ms. Douglas indicated it was very aggressive and we didn't really approach that animal. There was another animal that was a large dog that was there as well.
Q What, if anything, could you say about this other large dog?
A The other dog? It was nothing remarkable that we could see.
Q Now, when you referred to the animals and you referred to large pens and basically being open to the elements, can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by that?
A Well, there was -- there was some shelter available for these animals, but, like I say, they were all outside. They were exposed to the elements. They were -- you know, it was a cold -- cold winter day.
Q Did you go inside the shelter and look at the shelter at all?
A We just walked up to the pens to look inside the pens to look at the dogs as close as we could. We could see inside some of the space -- or the enclosures the dogs had available to them. There was just the one that we could actually look into it. There was some straw or hay on the floor. We also had an opportunity to look at three horses that were in the paddock as well, three other horses.
Q And what, if anything, did you observe about the condition of these horses?
A I noticed that they didn't have water available and it appeared as if they all required some hoof -- needed their hooves trimmed.
Q Why do you say that?
A They looked overgrown.
Q Now, in terms of the habitat for the dogs, the living area of the dogs, you mentioned fecal matter. Anything else in terms of the area --
A There was debris and holes in the ground, bones strewn about.
Q What, if anything, did you see in terms of access of food for the dogs? Did you look at that?
A We didn't see -- we didn't see any food available for the dogs.
Q Did you inspect any of the -- did you see any food or water containers on the premises?
A There was containers around. Yeah, there was water containers. Like I say, the water containers were iced over. The dogs couldn't -- or they had straw or hay in the -- mixed in with the ice. It hadn't looked like it had been addressed at all. Like, the -- nothing had been cleaned. The containers looked like they were dirty. The water containers looked dirty, unkempt.
Q And did you advise -- did you advise Ms. Douglas of any concerns you had with respect to those containers?
A Yes, we did. We asked that the containers -- you know, that the animals have adequate food and water available, as well as the containers be cleaned.
Q And with respect to the coats, the dogs' coats, you've given some evidence with respect to concerns in that area. Did you advise Ms. Douglas of those concerns?
A Yes, we did. Many of the dogs -- their fur was matted and unkempt, dirty.
Q Did you examine any of the dogs closely? When I say that, did you actually physically touch their coats?
A I didn't, no. I didn't touch them.
Q How close would you get to the dogs when you were looking at them?
A Oh, probably from over the fence. Probably just a few feet.
Q Similarly with respect to what you've said about the horses and their hooves, did you advise Ms. Douglas of your concerns --
A I did, yes.
Q -- in that area?
A There was also an amount of debris in the horse pasture as well that could possibly be a hazard to the animals.
Q And when you say debris, what do you mean by debris?
A There was bricks, rocks.
Q And did you advise Ms. Douglas of any concerns you had with respect to that debris and the horses at the time?
A I indicated, yeah, that all the areas where the animals -- like, including the dogs, that they be -- all the debris be cleaned up and all the hazards be taken away so the animals wouldn't hurt themselves, possibly hurt themselves.
Q Sir, was there any discussion about coyotes at all during this first attendance between yourself and Ms. Douglas?
A I believe, yes, there was. There was concern raised there as well. The context, though, I can't recall the context of it.
Q Would you have made a note of any conversations you would've had with Ms. Douglas in any report with respect to coyotes?
A I recall something about it, but offhand I don't know what it was. Ms. Woodward made notes for herself.
Q I'm sorry, Ms. Douglas?
A I'm sorry, Kathy Woodward, my associate, did make some notes.
Q Now, at the conclusion of your first inspection of the property, you gave Ms. Douglas a copy of a notice?
A Correct.
Q And you have a copy of the notice with you here today?
A I do.
Q Now, did you have any discussion with Ms. Douglas at the conclusion of your inspection?
A We did. I raised concerns about the animals. The items I was most concerned about, I explained to Ms. Douglas that I'd like to have her address these concerns immediately for the health of the animals and that we would return in about ten days to see if these concerns had been addressed.
Q And did you leave her with a contact number so she could call you if she had any questions or --
A There was --
Q -- concerns?
A There was a contact number on the -- on the notice that I issued her.
Q And did you warn her that if she failed to comply, she could be facing charges?
A I did, yes.
Q And that would've been under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?
A That's correct.
Q Can you please produce your copy of the cruelty complaint?
A I have it here.
MR. KAAY: Subject to any objections from my friend, I'm going to ask that that be marked as Exhibit 1 on the voir dire.
THE COURT: This is the notice?
MR. KAAY: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. Exhibit 1.

EXHIBIT 1 ON VOIR DIRE: Copy of notice of cruelty complaint dated February 25, 2003.

Q Now, sir, I understand that you next attended at the Douglas property on March 10th, 2003.
A That's correct. Yes, we did.
Q Now, first of all, before we get to that, do you recall approximately how long that first inspection took?
A It would've been probably no longer than thirty minutes, thirty-five minutes.
Q So then you attend back on March 10th. Do you recall what time of day you attended?
A It was in the afternoon again, early afternoon.
Q And once again I understand you attended with Special Constable Woodward.
A I did.
Q Had you received any phone calls from Ms. Douglas since your first attendance?
A No.
Q What happens when you arrive at the Douglas property that second time?
A We attended the second time. Ms. Douglas was on the premises, as well as another man. He identified himself as James Hill.
Q And are you in uniform at the time?
A I'm in uniform again. I reintroduced myself to both people.
Q Did you tell them why you were there?
A We told them we were doing a re-check of our last visit on February 25th and I consequently had a conversation with Mr. Hill. Ms. Douglas was feeding the dogs at the time.
Q And can you relate what the conversation was about with Mr. Hill?
A Mr. Hill? I asked Mr. Hill if he was the caregiver of the animals. He indicated that he lived on the property and that he helped look after all the animals on the property.
Q And when you say indicated, do you mean he said that?
A He said that, yes.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: Okay, he said he was?
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. He said that he was living on the property and that he was helping with the care of the animals on the property.
Q So then what happened, sir?
A Mr. Hill and I spoke for a short period of time. He asked about the notice. He had questions about the notice that we had issued to Ms. Douglas on our last visit on February 25th.
Q Was the notice produced at all?
A No. Anyways, I raised my concerns with Mr. Hill with regards to the animals on the property, the health and the welfare of the animals.
Q When you say raised your concerns, can you expand on that?
A I said that, you know, we had obvious concerns about the animals on the property, that -- you know, with regards to shelter and to cleanliness of all the animals on the property.
Q Then what happens?
A At the time Mr. Hill said that he -- he advised me that he was the owner and the caregiver of the horses on the property. We looked at the -- first of all, we looked at the dogs that were on the premises. The conditions had not changed from our previous visit, our previous inspection. The dogs were still matted, dirty. There was -- it was a warmer day then and there was water running off the roof of the house into one of the pens and the dogs -- many of the dogs were covered with dirt, mud. The runs were still filled with feces and debris.
Q When you refer to runs, what do you mean by that?
A The enclosures the dogs were in. Many of the -- we did notice that the containers for the water and the food were dirty and unkempt. Mr. Douglas -- pardon me. I'm sorry. Mr. Hill took us over to the horses. There was -- there were --
Q When you went over to the horses, what did you see?
A Yeah, there was a total of five horses and I noticed that the same large -- the same large brown gelding was still there from our first visit. His condition had not changed. He was looking very thin. Mr. Hill even showed me a wound on the horse's neck on his left side -- the left side of its neck by its ear. It was a large open wound. Mr. Hill indicated that he had been treating the wound, but he had not consulted with a veterinarian at all. The other horses that were in the paddock, they didn't have access to water. I noticed one horse had his nose to a puddle in the paddock. It was filled with urine and feces. The paddock was still filled with debris, old bricks and rocks.
Q Now, earlier you told His Honour about your concerns with respect to the horses' hooves. Did you make any observations with respect to the horses' hooves on this second visit?
A It did look like some of the hooves had been addressed, especially the brown mare -- or the brown gelding, the skinny brown gelding. His hooves had been addressed.
Q During the course of this inspection did anybody else arrive -- come and deal with any of the horses?
A Only during our first inspection on February 25th I recall a farrier did attend and he did start to address the hooves on the skinny brown gelding that was at the front of the house.
Q And how did you know this person to be a farrier on that first visit?
A I can only say that he had all the equipment that a farrier would have. He had all the trimming tools, cutters and a stool, and he appeared to be quite proficient at what he was doing.
Q So you actually watched him work on the --
A I watched him --
Q -- horses?
A -- briefly, yes.
Q Now, did you have any discussions with Ms. Douglas during this second visit?
A Just very briefly. Very briefly. Ms. Douglas didn't appear like she wanted to talk to us.
Q Why do you say that?
A She was -- she'd walk by us without looking at us. She -- I got the impression that she obviously didn't like us being there.
Q Now, how did this -- how long did the second inspection take?
A It was a brief inspection. Probably would've been about twenty, twenty-five minutes.
Q And how did it end?
A I still -- I advised Mr. Hill that we still had concerns about the welfare of the animals and that we had -- on our first inspection that we had hoped that -- that the concerns would've been addressed with regards to the health and welfare of these animals on the premises, and it was apparent that nothing had been done or very little had been done.
Q Did you indicate whether you'd be returning at all to the property again for a follow-up inspection?
A I didn't indicate -- no, I did not indicate at that time.
Q Did you make any such indication to Ms. Douglas --
A No.
Q -- at that time? Why not?
A She didn't want to talk to us.
Q What about with respect to Mr. Hill?
A Why we didn't ask him -- or why we -- I'm sorry, sir.
Q Did you say anything to Mr. Hill -- did you issue Mr. Hill a notice at the conclusion of the second inspection?
A No, we didn't.
Q Why not?
A Why not? To me it was apparent that they weren't interested in addressing the concerns that we raised. You know, I reiterated again that we had concerns and we'd hoped that they would comply and look after these animals.
Q And why would you say that they didn't -- I'll paraphrase, didn't appear to be interested?
A Because nothing had been addressed from our first visit, or very little had been addressed from our first visit.
Q Did you warn Mr. Hill that he could be faced with charges either under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act or the Criminal Code if he didn't comply?
A Yes, I did. Yes.
Q And did you tell Mr. Hill at the conclusion of that second visit whether or not you'd be back?
A I don't believe I did. I didn't indicate that I'd be back.
Q Now, sir, I understand that you reattended a third time to the Douglas property on March 21st, 2003.
A Yes.
Q Do you recall what time of day you attended?
A It was late afternoon around three o'clock.
Q This time I understand that you attended with another member of the S.P.C.A.
A That's correct, yes.
Q And who would've that been?
A That was Jan Beintema.
THE COURT: B?
Q Can you spell that for His Honour, please?
A Beintema, B-e-i-n-t-e-m-a.
THE COURT: B-e-i-n-t-i-n-a?
THE WITNESS: Beintema.
THE COURT: Jan B.
MR. KAAY: If Your Honour requires the spelling, I understand it's B-e-i-n-t-e-m-a.
THE COURT: B-e-i-m-t-i-n-a?
MR. KAAY: N-t.
THE COURT: N-t.
Q I'm sorry, sir, but I didn't ask you this. Had either Ms. Douglas or Mr. Hill contacted you prior to your attendance on March 21st, 2003?
A No.
Q So what happens when you get to the Douglas property on this occasion, March 21st?
A Mr. Hill and Ms. Douglas were again at the premises. We had a short conversation. I asked Mr. Hill if we could have another inspection of the animals on the premises. He was in agreement to it and we noticed that all the dogs in the pens around the -- near the dwelling house -- things were again unchanged.
Q Now, sir, when you say that Mr. Hill agreed, where was Ms. Douglas when you had this discussion?
A She was in the yard. She was not close by, but she was in the yard as well.
Q And were you in uniform again?
A Again I was in uniform and I reintroduced myself.
Q And did you tell them why you were there?
A Yes, that we still had concerns about the conditions of the animals on the premises.
Q And you told this to Mr. Hill?
A To Mr. Hill.
Q Did you say this to Ms. Douglas as well?
A She may have been within hearing range. I'm not sure.
Q And you say that Mr. Hill agreed or consented to this --
A He did consent.
Q -- third inspection?
A Yes.
Q And how did he indicate his agreement?
A He said, "Sure. If you want to have a look, let's have a look."
Q And what was the tone of this conversation between yourself and Mr. Hill?
A It was almost a friendly conversation, really. It was a good . . .
Q Now, sir, you began this third inspection and can you tell His Honour -- you briefly referred to the condition of the dogs, but can you elaborate on that, please?
A Okay. The dogs were still matted and dirty. Many of them were still shaking their heads. The --
Q The shaking of the heads, what, if anything, did that indicate to you?
A Well, it usually indicates there may be a concern with parasites, external parasites. The dog pens -- the pens where the dogs were kept were still littered with feces and debris. Food and water containers were still dirty, unkempt. We went to the paddock. Since our last inspection there had been a newborn foal and it had cuts on all four of its knees. When I asked Mr. Hill what had happened, he indicated that the foal had been born on ice and it had trouble getting up after it was born and had consequently damaged all four of its knees and the knees were bloody and swollen. The big brown gelding that we had observed on the other two inspections, it still had the big gaping wound on its -- on its neck by its right or -- or its left ear.
Q Can you comment on the condition of that wound at all?
A It was an open festering wound. You could -- you could probably stick your index finger well into the wound, probably up to your first knuckle.
Q Was there any indication that it was being treated at the time?
A He indicated again that he was treating it with some sort of a cream. The horse was also still quite thin. I also noticed that it had diarrhea on its tail which indicated to me that it was having trouble digesting its food.
Q Now, with respect to the newborn, the foal and the wounds, was there any indicator -- can you describe the wounds at all?
A They were open wounds on all four of its knees, all four legs. They appeared swollen and bloody.
Q Was there any indication that those wounds were being treated at all? Any bandaging or anything?
A I could not see, no. There was nothing. No bandages, nothing.
Q So what, if any, concerns did you have with respect to these horses and dogs?
A The concerns I had was that these animals were in distress, that they were suffering and in pain.
Q And did you -- and the basis for your concerns, was that as a result of your -- of that -- your observations on all three attendances at the Douglas property?
A Yes.
MR. BETTON: I don't want my friend to lead the witness, Your Honour.
Q So, sir, you formed an opinion?
A Yes, I did. I formed an opinion based on my observations during my visits that these animals were in distress, that they were -- they were in pain, suffering.
Q You referred to your visits. So why did you form that opinion?
A Again it was just based on my observations and the -- obviously the non-compliance of our concerns by Ms. Douglas and Mr. Hill.
Q And did you do anything as a result of forming this opinion?
A I did. I obtained a warrant under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and attended on March 27th with our staff members and a veterinarian and we were able to conduct a much closer inspection of all the animals on the premises.
Q And so you reattended at the Douglas property with that search warrant you'd obtained and do you recall what time you attended?
A It was about 11:15 a.m.
Q And I understand that when you attended, you attended with a Dr. Tracy Jacobson.
A That's correct.
Q And also attended with Kathy Woodward?
A That's correct, yes.
Q And a couple of other S.P.C.A. personnel?
A There were several S.P.C.A. personnel, yes.
Q And an R.C.M.P. member?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell His Honour what happened when you arrived at the property?
A When we arrived at the property, I approached Ms. Douglas, I identified myself again, I gave her a copy of the warrant. I also read her the official warning indicating that we were -- indicated that we would be conducting a closer investigation or a closer inspection of all the animals on the premises.
Q And do you have a copy of that warning with you here today?
A I don't, no.
Q Can you tell His Honour as best as you can recall what exactly you said to Ms. Douglas when you attended as to why you were there?
A I said that, "You're not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Q And what was Ms. Douglas' response?
A She didn't look at me. She just stared straight ahead and wouldn't reply.
Q Then what happens?
A Shortly afterwards Mr. Hill -- I approached Mr. Hill. He was on the premises. I again stated to him that we had a warrant to search, that Ms. Douglas had the copy of the search warrant. I also gave him the official warning.
Q And what did you say to him?
A I said, "You're not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Q And did Mr. Hill say anything in response?
A I indicated first -- after I read the -- or pardon me, before I -- I'm sorry, I was confused. Before I read him the warning, I said that we were on the premises with a warrant and I said that we were going to check for animals that were in distress. He blurted out to me, "I will show you the ones that are in distress." And at that time I read him the official warning.
Q And Mr. Hill's response to the warning, if any?
A None. He didn't indicate anything.
Q Did he indicate -- when you say none, did he say anything or make any physical gesture after you gave him --
A He shrugged his shoulders and that was -- that's all.
Q Did you have any concerns that he didn't understand the reason for your attendance?
A It appeared to me that he did understand, yes.
Q And why do you say that?
A Well, like, he indicated -- well, he says -- when he said, you know, "I'll show you the ones that are in distress. Go ahead," you know, there was gestures that he made towards the horse paddock, so . . .
Q Now, sir, I understand that when you attended for the purpose of executing the search warrant with the other members, that a number of photographs were taken.
A That's correct.
Q And do you have a copy of that photograph -- photo booklet?
A Not here. Not with me, no.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, if we could take the morning break at this point? It may be appropriate.
THE COURT: Very well. We'll take the morning break.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

(OTHER MATTERS SPOKEN TO)

MR. KAAY: If we could page Mr. Betton?
THE CLERK: Al Betton, Courtroom 201. Al Betton, Courtroom 201.
MR. BETTON: I apologize, Your Honour.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, the reason for my friend's absence lies at the feet of the Crown. What has happened here is when we took the break, I learned that additional photographs had been taken by the S.P.C.A. when they attended and executed the search warrant and they have two copies of those photographs, one set of twenty-five and another set of eleven. The S.P.C.A. personnel member who took those photos is here today and had those and, as a result, I provided a copy to my friend. Obviously this should've been provided to my friend earlier. The Crown only learned of it today during the break and subject to what my friend has to say with respect to how this impacts on how he wishes to conduct a defence, I'll just turn it over to my friend.

MR. BETTON: Yes, Your Honour, my friend's quite right. We just received those. I was just giving my clients their first opportunity to scan through the photographs. I can perhaps paint the scenario in this way and the issue that I'm trying to resolve. The photographs are photographs of things about which I have had some notice. In other words, the subject matter of the photographs is something that's not new to me. It's the existence of the photographs that is new. So the question that arises is, from the defence perspective, should the defence say that the photographs are simply inadmissible because it's late disclosure and (indiscernible) ought to be proceed without the Crown being able to put those photographs in.

This isn't, however, entirely new evidence in terms of the subject matter being new evidence and it may be that the court would be inclined to say, "Well, we're either going to hear about it or we're going to hear about it and see photographs and if the defence needs an adjournment, then an adjournment is the appropriate solution, not keeping the evidence out." I'm just in the throes of explaining that type of scenario to my clients so that they understand and I'm certainly not conceding that that would be the result, but it's one of the issues that obviously would arise.

The other question is, is it something that requires an adjournment at this stage to allow my clients an opportunity to address what's depicted in the photographs or does it make more sense to at least finish this witness and go as far as we can with this witness before concluding for the day. So that's what I'm in the process of doing and I've just handed the photographs to my clients to review so that they have an opportunity to look at them.
THE COURT: Well, we'll stand you down and I'm hopeful -- I've got more in-custodies, trying to get some prisoners moving here. Is that what you wanted, a few more minutes?
MR. BETTON: Yes, they -- like I say, it's brand new to them, so --
THE COURT: No, I think that's appropriate.
MR. KAAY: And from the Crown, Your Honour, it's something that -- because these pictures were taken during the search warrant, we do have the person who was there who took the pictures. It may be something I'd like to refer Mr. Kuich to, but of course I haven't sat down with him and looked at these new pictures having just got them and I can't really ask the court to give me that time. It wouldn't be fair in the context of everything and how this has developed.
THE COURT: So the Crown thinks an adjournment's a good idea, too?
MR. KAAY: Well, I'm not going to ask for an adjournment because I don't think I should. We could proceed. The Crown can proceed because we have another witness who can come. It's on the photographs, in any event, having taken them.
THE COURT: Well, we'll let defence consider their position, then.
MR. BETTON: I understand, then, that the court has some custodies to deal with or --
THE COURT: I'm hopeful they'll be ready.
MR. BETTON: If I'm needed, I'm just in the witness room outside of the hearing room there.
THE COURT: Hill and Douglas is stood down, then.

(OTHER MATTERS SPOKEN TO)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

MR. KAAY: Thank you, Your Honour, for giving us that time. The Crown is prepared to continue on examining Mr. Kuich.
MR. BETTON: Your Honour, I can say that from the defence perspective, I mean, I think we're going to hear this evidence in any event and my sense is that the court's response would not be to preclude the Crown from using the evidence, but to say if we need an adjournment, that we could have one, and certainly my friend has indicated they wouldn't oppose it. My preference in recognizing that reality is that we go as far as we can. We can certainly deal with Mr. Kuich and probably some additional witnesses, but I can say that it's unlikely that I'm going to want to try to conclude the case even if we would've had time to do so.
THE COURT: Very well. Recall Mr. Kuich.
THE CLERK: I'll remind you you're still under oath.

BRADLEY KUICH, a witness, recalled, warned.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. KAAY, continuing:

Q Sir, when you were last giving evidence to His Honour, we were getting into what happened when you were executing the search warrant at the Douglas property on March 27th, 2003. Can you describe to His Honour what happens? You had some dealings with Mr. Hill at that time?
A Yes. After we had spoken briefly with Mr. Hill and Ms. Douglas, we then, with the aid of our veterinarian, started to conduct a search of the premises in relation to the animals. Our veterinarian was able to inspect most of the animals on the premises.
Q And I understand that one of the employees from the S.P.C.A. with you was a gentleman by the name of Greg Ivans.
A Yes, that's correct.
Q And he attended with you for the purpose of taking photos?
A Yes, I asked Mr. Ivans if he would take photographs of the scene for me and he did so.
Q And you have reviewed the photographs that Mr. Ivans took of the --
A Yes, I have.
Q -- Douglas property?
A Yes.
Q Now, sir, I understand that some of the photographs, approximately eighteen photographs, were put together in a photo booklet.
A Yes.
Q And I'm showing you a copy of the booklet. Do you recognize this as the photo booklet?
A I do, yes.
Q Mr. Kuich, I'm going to ask you, first of all, to go to the first page of that photo booklet.
A Yes.
Q And if you can hold it up so His Honour can see? That first photograph, what does that depict?
A It shows the front entrance to the Douglas residence from Highway 97.
Q And the photograph immediately beneath that, picture number 2, what does that depict?
A It depicts a sign that was on the front door of the -- or near the front door of the residence. It showed the price that she was asking for -- that they were asking for the dogs.
Q Now, do you recall having seen that sign depicted in photograph number 2 on any prior occasions when you attended at the Douglas place?
A Yes, on my first visit to the premises.
Q Turning to the photographs depicted on the next page, sir, photograph number 3 and photograph number 4, do you recognize what those photographs depict?
A Yes, that's a picture of the front of the residence from the driveway as you drive down.
Q And photograph number 5 and photograph number 6, what do those photographs depict?
A It shows a brown horse, and it was the horse that we observed on our first -- well, on all inspections of the residence, the horse that I -- I had concerns about its weight and it appeared to be quite skinny and it had an injury on its neck on the left side.
Q And, sir, is that a picture of yourself in picture number 5 and number 6 with that horse?
A That is, yes.
Q If you could turn to the next page, sir? Photograph number 7, do you recognize that photograph?
A Yes, it's a photograph with me in it with the young filly that we had noted with the injuries to its legs, to its knees.
Q And photograph number 8 and number 9, are those close-up photographs of that injured filly?
A Yes, it is.
Q Photograph number 10, sir, what does that depict?
A It shows the dog runs -- part of the dog -- or some of the dog runs more or less on the south side of the residence, the south side of the property.
Q Photograph number 11, sir?
A Eleven shows one of the enclosures or the -- a small building and I believe it was -- it looked as if it might've been a chicken coop that had been converted to house animals, house the dogs, and it shows the dirty food dishes, the floors appear unkempt.
Q Photograph number 12, sir.
A Again it's the dog pens along the south side of the property in which there were dogs -- some of the dogs were kept.
Q Photograph number 13, sir?
A Shows what would appear to be a drawer from a fridge that was used as a water container for the dogs. I noticed that there was a large amount of debris and dirt in the water and the dish is dirty.
Q Photograph number 14, sir.
A More pictures of the dog runs. It depicts dirt, feces, debris.
Q And the next page, sir, photograph number 15.
A Fifteen is a picture of two of the dogs on the premises. They appear to be dirty and matted, unkempt.
Q Photograph number 16, sir.
A Sixteen again shows more dogs, more of these small breed dogs and they appear again to be in feces and dirt. They are dirty and matted.
Q Photograph number 17, sir?
A Seventeen shows -- again shows more dogs. There's one dog that has some type of skin condition on its left front side.
Q Finally, photograph number 18, sir.
A Another one of the pens showing dirt and debris and a dog that appears to be unkempt, dirty and matted.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, if that could be marked as the next exhibit on the voir dire, the photo booklet?
MR. BETTON: No objection, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Two.

EXHIBIT 2 ON VOIR DIRE: Booklet containing eighteen photographs.

Q Now, sir, you're also aware that in addition to the photographs that are included in the photograph booklet, there are other photographs that were taken by Mr. Ivans during the execution of the search warrant?
A Yes.
Q And had you viewed these photograph previous to today?
A Yes, I have.
Q Sir, I'm showing you a photograph . . .

(INDISCERNIBLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNSEL)

Q Sir, do you recognize this photograph?
A It's one of the buildings where -- that the dogs had access to. It shows the entranceway of the dog --
Q Can you hold it up so His Honour can see? Thank you. If you can hand that to Madam Clerk?
MR. KAAY: If that can be . . .

(INDISCERNIBLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNSEL)

MR. KAAY: Sorry, Your Honour.
MR. BETTON: We're just trying to come up with a system for numbering them. They have some ink numbering from the developing process.
MR. KAAY: Madam Clerk, can we see the back? Thank you.

(INDISCERNIBLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNSEL)

MR. KAAY: If this can be marked as an exhibit? On the back it's indicated -- there's a number eleven . . .

(INDISCERNIBLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNSEL)

MR. KAAY: If this can be marked as Exhibit number 3 on the voir dire, Your Honour?
THE COURT: Exhibit 3.
MR. KAAY: It has the descriptor eleven on the back.
THE COURT: Eleven?
MR. KAAY: So it's 3-11. Thank you.

EXHIBIT 3-11 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 11 on the back.

Q Sir, do you recognize this next photograph?
A It's a picture of a water container for the dogs and one of the pens. Again it has debris and dirt inside of it.
MR. KAAY: And if that could be marked as the next exhibit, 4, and on the back I believe it has --
THE CLERK: Ten.
MR. KAAY: -- the number ten.

EXHIBIT 4-10 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 10 on the back.

Q Sir, once again can you describe what this picture depicts?
A It depicts another picture of the dog runs on the premises. There's a doghouse there. There's some debris around and there's feces and dirt.
MR. KAAY: If this could be marked as the next exhibit, four, and it's got the number nine on the back, so 4-9, Madam Clerk? Or 5-9.
THE COURT: Five nine.

EXHIBIT 5-9 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 9 on the back.

Q Similarly, sir, can you describe this photograph for the court?
A The dog pen with a large number -- a lot of feces on the ground, dog feces.
MR. KAAY: If that can be marked as 6-8, Your Honour?

EXHIBIT 6-8 ON THE VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 8 on the back.

Q Sir, with respect to the feces, did you note any odours when you attended to execute the search warrant?
A Yes, there was overpowering odours from the dog pens.
Q And what, if anything, can you say about odours on your previous attendances at the Douglas property?
A There was a noted odour as well on the others previous inspections of the property.
Q And that odour would be of?
A Feces and urine.
Q Similarly, sir, this next picture, can you describe what that is?
A Again it shows large amounts of feces and dirt in the dog runs.
MR. KAAY: And if that could be marked as the next exhibit, 7-7.
THE COURT: 7-7.

EXHIBIT 7-7 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 7 on the back.

Q Similarly, sir, can you please describe the next picture for His Honour?
A The dog run with again more feces.
MR. KAAY: 8-6, Your Honour.
THE COURT: 8-6.

EXHIBIT 8-6 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 6 on the back.

Q The next picture, sir.
A Again, just a picture of the inside of one of the buildings where the dogs had access to.
Q Now, sir, in this picture we see what appears to be a light in the top of it.
A Yes.
Q What, if anything, can you say about that light?
A It looks like a light that would be there for heat, but it's close to an area where it could be flammable (indiscernible).
Q Now, had you -- you say heat. Why do you say it could be there for heat? Did you check it?
A Well, I didn't personally check it, no. It was hooked up. There was power to it and it appeared to be heat lamp of some kind.
Q Did you check the interior of any of the buildings on your prior visits to obtaining the search warrant?
A No. Not inside them, no.
MR. KAAY: If that can be marked as the exhibit, 9-5, Your Honour?
THE COURT: 9-5.

EXHIBIT 9-5 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 5 on the back.

Q The next picture, sir, could you describe that for His Honour?
A It's a food dish that was inside one of the sheds. The dogs had access to it. It has dog food in it. There is some debris in the dog food and in the water as well.
MR. KAAY: 10-4.

EXHIBIT 10-4 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 4 on the back.

Q The next picture, sir, can you describe that for His Honour?
A It shows inside a shed that the dogs had access to. It shows a dog in the picture. There's water and food in the dish there that had debris in it.
MR. KAAY: 11-3, Your Honour.
THE COURT: 11-3.

EXHIBIT 11-3 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 3 on the back.

Q Similarly, sir, this next picture.
A It's inside the shed. It depicts -- they divide into stalls for the dogs to -- storage of the dogs, I suppose.
THE COURT: Exhibit 12-2.

EXHIBIT TWELVE-2 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 2 on the back.

Q And why do you say supposed for dog storage? Is there anything --
A Well, actually -- I'm sorry. We did see dogs going in and out of that area from outside.
Q Thank you. And number one. This next picture, sir, can you describe that, please?
A Inside the shed. There's straw on the floor and there appears to be an electrical cord running through where the dogs had access to.
Q When you refer to an electrical cord, did you check to see if that cord was alive, meaning it had power?
A No.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 13-1?
THE COURT: 13-1.

EXHIBIT 13-1 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 1 on the back.

Q Sir, if you could describe this next picture for the court, please?
A That's the yard -- or the dog run filled -- covered with old and recent feces. Debris as well.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 14 and has the number twelve on the back, Your Honour?
THE COURT: 12-14.
MR. KAAY: Can we call it 14-12, Your Honour?
THE COURT: Or 14-12.
MR. KAAY: Thank you.

EXHIBIT 14-12 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 12 on the back.

Q The next picture, sir, can you describe that for His Honour?
A Yes. It's in the compound -- or the dog runs -- one of the dog runs and there's a large pile of dog feces.
THE COURT: Exhibit 13 --
MR. KAAY: Exhibit 13-13, Your Honour?
THE COURT: 13-13.
THE CLERK: It'll be 15-13.
MR. KAAY: Oh, sorry, 15-13.
THE COURT: Yes, fifteen.
MR. KAAY: Thank you.

EXHIBIT 15-13 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 13 on the back.

Q This next picture, sir, can you describe that?
A A picture of a dog run with large amounts of feces, piles of feces.
Q Now, sir, once again, in terms of the freshness of the feces you observed when --
A There was old and -- and new feces, recent feces.
Q And, sir, how does the depiction of feces in this -- in this photograph compare with the feces you testified in your prior attendances to the Douglas property?
A It's the same.
Q When you say the same --
A The same as from my previous inspections. Before the warrant there was the same amount of feces.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 16-14?
THE COURT: 16-14.

EXHIBIT 16-14 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 14 on the back.

Q This next picture, sir, once again?
A Again a dog run with large amounts of old and new feces.
MR. KAAY: 17-15, Your Honour.
THE COURT: 17-15.

EXHIBIT 17-15 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 15 on the back.

Q Can you describe this next picture, sir?
A That's another picture. It's on the south side of the residence itself. It's another compound where the dogs were in. It had large amounts of new and recent feces and lots of dirt and mud.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 18-16.
THE COURT: 18-16.

EXHIBIT 18 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 16 on the back.

Q Please describe this next photograph, sir.
A That's another similar photograph as the one before. It shows again another dog run -- or the same dog run, I believe, with large amounts of new and recent feces -- or old and recent feces.
MR. KAAY: 19-17.
THE COURT: 19-17.

EXHIBIT 19-17 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 17 on the back.

Q Please describe this next photograph, sir.
A Just depicts a doghouse within the area where the dogs were kept in the dog pen. There's feces and some debris around the doghouse.
Q Sir, did you take an opportunity to look inside this doghouse?
A Yeah, I did look inside the doghouse. It was just -- there was some feces inside of it and it was mostly (indiscernible) old feces.
MR. KAAY: 20-18.
THE COURT: 20-18.

EXHIBIT 20-18 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 18 on the back.

Q Please describe this next photograph, sir.
A That shows a photograph on the south side of the house again showing some debris and large amounts of feces and dirt.
MR. KAAY: 21-19.
THE COURT: 21-19.

EXHIBIT 21 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 19 on the back.

Q Please describe this next picture, sir.
A Another picture of the dog runs along the south side of the residence showing some debris on the ground and feces.
MR. KAAY: 22-20.
THE COURT: 22-20.

EXHIBIT 22-20 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 20 on the back.

Q This next picture, sir?
A The dog run along the south side of the house. It shows holes, debris and feces.
Q When you say holes, sir, could you elaborate on what you mean by that?
A Okay, there's -- in the picture on the left-hand side you'll see some different holes in the ground. Obviously the dogs had been digging in there sometime.
Q Did you notice holes of that nature on your previous attendances at the Douglas property?
A Yes, I did.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 23-21, Your Honour.
THE COURT: 23-21.

EXHIBIT 23-21 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 21 on the back.

Q And is there any significance to those holes? Do you have any concerns about those holes at all?
A The only thing is the dogs could fall into the holes, or other animals.
Q And this next picture, sir, could you describe that?
A It's just another picture of the dog run on the south side of the residence depicting -- again it's some holes and some dirt and feces.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 24-22, please?
THE COURT: 24-22.

EXHIBIT 24-22 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 22 on the back.

Q And this next picture, sir?
A Again of the dog run. It shows feces and a dog dish -- part of a dog dish and I see rocks.
MR. KAAY: 25-23.
THE COURT: 25-23.

EXHIBIT 25-23 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 23 on the back.

Q This next picture, sir?
A That's again in the dog run. It shows feces, rocks and apparently -- well, there's a hole here that apparently had been dug over a long period of time.
Q You say apparently dug over a long period of time?
A It's a rather large hole and, you know, for a small dog to -- or small dogs to be digging there, it must've taken some time.
Q Do you recall seeing holes of that size on your previous occasions or --
A Yes.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 27 -- or 26-24.
THE COURT: 26-24.

EXHIBIT 26-24 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 24 on the back.

Q This next picture, sir?
A Again in the dog run, one of the dog runs. It shows feces, old and new. Large amounts of feces.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 27-25?
THE COURT: 27-25.

EXHIBIT 27-25 ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 25 on the back.

Q This next picture, sir? Sir, do you recognize this picture?
A Yes, it's another photo along the side of the house that depicts the area where the dogs were -- had access to. You'll notice there's a fair amount of debris around.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, this on the back has the notation number 11A, so if it could be marked as 28-11A?
THE COURT: 28-11A.

EXHIBIT 28-11A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 11A on the back.

Q Similarly, sir, could you describe this picture, please, for His Honour?
A It's a picture in the dog run. There's a fair amount of debris with -- like, boards with nails sticking out of it. The dogs had access to that area.
Q And do you have any concerns with respect to the boards and the nails and the dogs?
A A dog could conceivably injure itself on the debris and the nails in that area they had access to.
MR. KAAY: If this can be marked as Exhibit 29-10A?
THE COURT: 29-10A.

EXHIBIT 29-10A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 10A on the back.

Q Sir, had you seen debris of that nature in terms of boards and nails on your prior attendances at the Douglas's?
A Yes, we did.
Q Including the first attendance?
A Including all -- yes, on the first attendance.
Q This next picture, sir, could you please describe that for His Honour?
A Another picture of the boards with nails in them in the dog pens where the dogs had access to.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 30-9A?
THE COURT: 30-9A.

EXHIBIT 30-9A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 9A on the back.

Q This next picture, sir, can you describe that?
A It's an another picture that was taken of inside the dog runs -- dog run. There's debris on the ground where the dogs had access to and there's also feces and rocks.
MR. KAAY: And if that could be marked as Exhibit number 31-8A?
THE COURT: Exhibit 31-8A.

EXHIBIT 31-8A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 8A on the back.

Q And once again, please describe this photograph for His Honour.
A It shows the dog pen with feces, large amounts of feces on the ground the dogs had access to.
THE COURT: 32-7A?
MR. KAAY: Yes, please.

EXHIBIT 32-7A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 7A on the back.

Q This next photograph, sir, please describe.
A It's partially -- a partial photo of the front of the house with dog pens. There's some dirt and debris on the ground where the dogs had access to.
MR. KAAY: 33-6A, please.
THE COURT: 33-6A.

EXHIBIT 33-6A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 6A on the back.

Q Sir, this next picture, could you please describe that?
A A picture of doghouses the dogs had access to in the dog runs. There's a fair amount of straw and there's feces in the straw.
Q Sir, did you happen to take a look inside these shelters?
A Yes, there was mildewy straw inside the doghouses, wet straw.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as 34-5A.
THE COURT: 34-5A.

EXHIBIT 34-5A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 5A on the back.

Q The next picture, sir, can you describe that for His Honour?
A A picture of the dog run where the dogs had access to. There's a large pile of old feces.
MR. KAAY: If that can be marked as 35-4A?
THE COURT: 35-4A.

EXHIBIT 35-4A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 4A on the back.

Q This next picture, sir, could you describe that?
A A picture of the ground inside the dog run with more feces, some debris.
MR. KAAY: If this could be marked as the next exhibit, Your Honour, 36-3A?
THE COURT: 36-3A.
MR. BELTON: Shouldn't that be thirty-seven? Thirty-six, I'm sorry.
MR. KAAY: Thirty-six.
MR. BELTON: Yes, sorry.

EXHIBIT 36-3A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 3A on the back.

Q This next picture, sir?
A A picture inside the dog pen again where the dogs had access to. It shows a plastic dog bowl with debris in it and there was also some old feces around the dog bowl.
MR. KAAY: If this could be marked as 37-2A?
THE COURT: 37-2A.

EXHIBIT 37-2A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 2A on the back.

Q Finally, sir, do you recognize this photograph?
A This is a photo taken outside the dog pen on the south side of the premises. It's between the dog pen and the highway. It's just outside the dog pen. It shows a carcass. I'm not sure what it is, a carcass of some sort of wild animal.
MR. KAAY: If that could be marked as the next exhibit, 38-1A?
THE COURT: 38-1A.

EXHIBIT 38-1A ON VOIR DIRE: Photograph with the number 1A on the back.

Q Sir, you described a number of photographs that were taken during the execution of the search warrant. Had you seen any changes in the conditions of the animals since your previous attendance, I believe, on March 21st, 2003?
A I hadn't noticed any changes, no.
Q And when you say you hadn't noticed any changes, what do you mean by that?
A Well, I meant that the conditions were still the same from my first -- my first inspection, the second and third inspections.
Q And was anything going on in terms of activity with the animals while the search was being conducted by yourself and other officials from the S.P.C.A.?
A The animals were in their compounds. Like I say, we had the veterinarian examine each animal individually and consequently, after the examination, most of these animals were taken into our custody.
Q And why did you take these animals into your custody?
A I formed the opinion that these animals were in distress and that they were taken into our custody to provide proper care for them.
Q I understand that a list was provided of the animals that were taken into custody.
A Yes, there was a list of fifty-one small breed dogs that were taken into our custody.
Q And in addition to the fifty-one small breed dogs that were taken into custody, were there any horses that were taken into custody?
A Yes, we took custody of six horses.
Q And do you have a list or an exhibit report that you prepared with respect to those horses?
A Yes.
Q Do you have a copy of that?
A I believe I do.
MR. KAAY: Subject to anything my friend may have to say, I propose simply filing the exhibit report as the next exhibit.
THE COURT: Thirty-nine?
MR. KAAY: Please.
MR. BELTON: I have no objection to that, Your Honour.

EXHIBIT 39: Two page exhibit report listing animals taken into custody dated March 27, 2003.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaay, I see Mr. Wark. Are we now ready to roll on those prisoners?
MR. WARK: We're ready to do three of them.
THE COURT: Maybe we'll stand this down till 2:00, then.
MR. KAAY: Thank you, Your Honour.

(OTHER MATTERS SPOKEN TO)

MR. KAAY: Recalling the Hill and Douglas matter, Your Honour. I'll just get Mr. Kuich.
THE CLERK: Madam Clerk, that video is on Thursday, not Monday. I'm here Thursday, so I was half right. Sorry about the wild goose chase.

BRADLEY KUICH, a witness, recalled.

EXAM IN CHIEF BY MR. KAAY ON VOIR DIRE, continuing:

Q Sir, during the execution of the search warrant, was Mr. Hill doing anything with respect to any of the animals?
A I noticed Mr. Hill was feeding the horses hay.
Q And had you received any telephone calls from either Mr. Hill or Ms. Douglas between the time of your third visit at the property and when you attended to execute the search warrant?
A No.
Q Had you received any phone calls from either Mr. Hill or Ms. Douglas after your first visit back in February with respect to any of the concerns you'd related to them about the animals or the property?
A No.
Q Now, a number of dogs and horses were seized. Can you tell His Honour where those animals were taken?
A All the horses were taken to a facility we have at Kamloops and was transported by one of our shelter staff. All the dogs were taken to the Kelowna shelter.
Q And did you have any dealings with the dogs after the execution of the search warrant?
A Other than helping to transport the dogs, nothing else.
Q So just the initial transport from the Douglas property back to Kelowna that day?
A (NO VERBAL RESPONSE)
Q I understand that some animals were not seized --
A There was --
Q -- that day.
A -- yeah, two large dogs that were not taken into our custody. One dog was very aggressive and we

didn't have the time to deal with that particular animal, and a second large breed dog that was not in distress. There was two other dogs at the premises that were in another person's vehicle.
Q When you say another person's vehicle, could --
A It was another person that was on the property. I don't have the person's name, but my understanding was that those two dogs belonged to him.
Q When you say to him, that's referring to another person who was at the property --
A Yeah.
Q -- and not Mr. Hill or Ms. Douglas?
A No. And there were two horses that were not taken into our custody either, that were left at the premises.
Q And why were those horses left at the premises?
A After consulting with the veterinarian, we believed that these two horses were not in distress.
Q And that veterinarian being Dr. Jacobson?
A Dr. Jacobson, yes.
MR. KAAY: Thank you, sir. Please answer any questions my friend will have for you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BETTON ON VOIR DIRE:

Q Sir, early in your evidence in answer to Mr. Kaay's questions you indicated that you had attended at the property as a result of prior complaints. Do I have that correct?
A Yes.
Q I think you said that you'd received concerns from the general public and you were asked by Mr. Kaay to refer to your file and you indicated that you hadn't brought that portion of the file with you. Do you recall that?
A I recall that, yes.
Q Now, earlier today I received from the Crown a copy of two complaints that had been received by the S.P.C.A. One was dated February 26th, 2003, and the other March 29th, 2003. Are there others?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q So if the first one in time that we were provided with was February 26th and you attended on February 25th, then I'm presuming that there hadn't been any complaints received before your attendance on the 25th of February.

A No, I recall there was complaints received, it's just that I don't have that available today.
Q Well, who provided to the Crown the two complaints to which I refer?
A Those were provided by myself.
Q So those would've been provided pursuant to a request made of you by Mr. Kaay?
A Yes.
Q And I received a copy of them today and just for reference, the first one says, "Date reported: February 26, '03, correct?
A Yes.
Q And the second one says, "Date reported: March 29, '03," correct?
A That's correct.
Q All right. So the Crown makes a request of you to say, "Look, defence counsel wants to know about prior complaints," and that's what you provide, right?
A That's what I did, yes.
Q In fact, that request had been made back in October, give or take, right?
A Yes.
Q All right. Was there any particular reason it took until today to get those?
A My understanding was that those were sent some time ago.
Q Okay.
A They weren't sent by me, but I know that I asked another staff member to send them to Mr. Kaay.
Q Well, that issue aside, if these are the two prior -- or the two complaints that apply, where's the information to suggest that there had been complaints prior to February 26th, 2003?
A I don't have it.
Q Are you saying they exist?
A I say that they exist, but I don't have them, sir.
Q You don't have them with you?
A I don't have them. I assumed they were on the file, but they were (indiscernible) mislaid.
Q So they were destroyed or misplaced or misfiled or something like that, sir?
A (NO VERBAL RESPONSE)
Q Yes.
A Yes, possibly.
Q But you can recall them being there?
A I can recall, yes.
Q One, more than one?
A I recall one complaint and just with discussions with other shelter staff and other shelters, there was -- had been some concerns about that particular residence for over a number of years.
Q Well, let's be clear. The policy of the B.C.S.P.C.A. is to, when they receive a complaint, prepare a document such as the ones you faxed to Mr. -- or provided to Mr. Kay, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, you're saying that you believe that other documents such as those that I've referred you to dated February 26th, 2003, and March 29, 2003, exist but their whereabouts are now unknown?
A To the best of my recollection there was a complaint; however, I don't have access to it now. It could've been misplaced.
Q All right. And then you're saying -- now, are we talking about one complaint, one document or one complaint that would've been reduced to a piece of paper like that which we referred to on February 26th and March 29th?
A There's the one that I recall, yes.
Q All right. And beyond that, what you're saying is that there had been some discussion among S.P.C.A. staff about the property over the years?
A Correct.
Q Would it be fair to say that the S.P.C.A. had received numerous complaints over the past five years, that is five years prior to the application for the warrant?
A There had been numerous complaints, yes, from just my discussions with other shelter staff in Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Vernon.
Q Well, what we've talked about are the two that come after the fact that obviously wouldn't have been in existence when you went there on February 25th, right? So put those aside because they're not relevant to what had led up to this process. As I understood it, you said you'd recalled seeing one similar document in the file prior to attending on the 25th of February, correct?
A Yes.
Q But now, as I understand it, what you're saying is that there had been numerous complaints, whereas I had understood it was just discussions, there had been comments.
A Okay. There had been -- my understanding, there had been numerous complaints received by other shelters in the past about the conditions of the animals on that premise.
Q Where are those documents?
A I don't have them.
Q Do they exist?
A I don't know.
Q So how do we know there were numerous complaints?
A This is just from my conversations with shelter staff.
Q Do you know what the nature of the complaints were?
A Complaints about the housing and the health of the animals on the premises.
Q Now, you prepared the information in support of the search warrant to apply for the search warrant, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And in that you characterize the information as follows:

"Over the past five years the B.C.S.P.C.A. has received numerous complaints concerning the breeding practices and animal husbandry on the premises."

Do you recall saying that?
A (NO VERBAL RESPONSE)
Q Is that an accurate statement?
A The information I had, I believe it was, yes.
Q But you didn't have any documents and no specifics, correct?
A No documents, no.
Q Which B.C.S.P.C.A. staff did you talk to about it?
A I talked to the shelter manager in Salmon Arm, I talked to the cruelty investigator in Kamloops, as well as another cruelty investigator in Vernon.
Q And yet the B.C.S.P.C.A. had never attended the property prior to that.
A I understand that they have in the past, yes.
Q Well, I misunderstood. I thought you said in your direct evidence that to your knowledge there hadn't been any prior attendances. Was I -- did I misunderstand?
A No, I'm saying that there have been other complaints that I've been -- other staff members had advised me that there had been complaints and my understanding is that they have attended to those complaints.
Q Nothing ever came of it, I take it.
A Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q All right. Perhaps a little misleading to say to the judge on the application for the warrant that there'd been all of these complaints? Wouldn't it have made sense to say, "Look, there's been attendances, there wasn't anything substantiated, there was no action taken," or, "It's rumour. We've talked about it generally"?
A It's possible, yes.
Q You were charged with the responsibility -- this may be a poor way to put it. One of the issues you were trying to address when you went to the residence pursuant to the search warrant was to formulate an opinion about whether the animals, or any of them, were in distress, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Since it was your opinion and you've said in the course of your evidence that the animals were in distress, tell us what you mean by distress.
A They were suffering --
Q What does that -- I'm going to ask you to elaborate on that. Sorry, I cut you off.
A Because of lack of proper care, because of the conditions they were under, the injuries to the -- the sores, it was my opinion that they were suffering and in pain. The living conditions were substandard.
Q Anything else?
A No.
Q No?
A Not that I can think of right now.
Q From time to time animals get sick, right?
A Correct.
Q And what's expected of people is that when animals get sick, appropriate care is going to be provided, correct?
A Correct.
Q That doesn't necessarily mean veterinary assistance. That could be just providing some regular care, correct?
A Yes.
Q From time to time animals get injured, correct?
A They do.
Q And what's expected again is that people are going to take some appropriate steps to try to address those issues, correct?
A Correct.
Q And some types of issues and ailments take longer than others to get over, correct?
A Yes.
Q And sometimes the issues reach a level where a decision has to be made, do you prolong the life of the animal or euthenize the animal, correct?
A In some cases, yes.
Q And those can be very difficult decisions, correct?
A I know from personal experience, yes.
Q And especially to the owner of an animal they can be very difficult decisions, correct?
A Absolutely.
Q And many times we encounter in the course of reaching or making those decisions divergent opinions about what the right steps to take are, when the right steps should be taken and what those right steps actually are, correct?
A Yes.
Q You'd agree with me that on acreages and farms there are times of year where some issues are much easier to address than others?
A I don't know how that pertains. I can't understand the -- (indiscernible) answer that.
Q It's a muddy time of year out there right now, isn't it?
A It could be, yes.
Q I mean, I grew up on a farm. In my experience, and tell me if this is out of keeping with yours, is that this time of year as you go through February, March and into April, depending on the weather, it can be sloppy, awful times of year to try and keep fields clear and to get out there and deal with the mud and muck and water and runoff and all those sorts of things, correct?
A It can be.
Q You have the freeze and thaw cycles which make some days mucky, other days hard and icy and some times of day, correct?
A It can be.
Q My driveway the other day went from pure slush to hard ice over the course of the twenty-four hour period. That's the sort of thing that happens this time of year, right?
A It can happen, yes.
Q If a person's got an animal that is either sick or injured and they're administering care to it, that's not a basis to seize an animal, correct?
A If the animal is improving because of the treatment, then, yes, I'd agree to that.
Q And the span of time over which we're watching for improvement is going to depend on the nature of the problem, correct?
A Possibly.
Q I want to take, for example, the older brown gelding horse. You recall that animal?
A Yes, I do.
Q Did you see an improvement in it between February 25th and March 10th?
A Not at all.
Q Not at all?
A No.
Q So if any of your co-workers saw an improvement, you would disagree with that?
A Except for the hooves. The hooves had been addressed.
Q All right. With that exception, you didn't see any improvement whatsoever?
A No.
Q Your first two visits you had with you Karen Woodard, correct?
A Kathy Woodward.
Q Kathy, I'm sorry. Kathy Woodward?
A Kathy Woodward, yes.
Q All right. And she was charged with or took responsibility for some note-taking?
A She did take some notes.
Q And that was sort of on both of your behalves, or did she just do it on her own?
A It was both our behalves, I suppose, yes.
Q One of the most significant problems with that older brown gelding horse was that it appeared far too thin, correct?
A Yes.
Q So you would disagree wholeheartedly with any observation that -- by March 10th, 2003, it appeared to have gained some weight?
A I would say that the conditions had not improved for this animal, no.
Q So you would disagree with the observation that it appeared to have gained some weight?
A I would disagree, yes.
Q Have you read over Ms. Woodward's notes at all?
A (NO VERBAL RESPONSE)
Q The part I've highlighted, you recognize that? March 10th. This is a copy of the notes. There's Ms. Woodward's --
A Yes.
Q -- signature at the bottom. She talks about:

"We examined the horse that they had 'rescued.'"

And I'll get to that, and she notes:

"It appeared to have gained some weight, but it still looked in poor condition."

That wasn't your observation?
A That wasn't my observation, no.
Q Is it possible that the perception of how an animals is doing is, to some extent, in the eyes of the beholder, then?
A Could be, possibly.
Q Sometimes the changes are subtle?
A Perhaps, yes.
Q It would certainly appear, if we accept Ms. Woodward's note to be a reflection of her observation, that you and she differed on how the horse was doing in that respect.
A I would say so, yes.
Q If, in fact, there was an improvement in weight of that animal, that would certainly suggest its condition was improving, correct, that being one of the major concerns?
A If it was, in fact, gaining weight, I suppose, yes.
Q Well, you suppose or -- I mean, that's -- I mean, that's one of the big problems, is the thing was emaciated, right?
A It was very thin, yes.
Q And if it was gaining weight, that would be a good sign, right?
A If it was gaining weight, yes.
Q And that would suggest, if, in fact, that were the case, that whoever was looking after that horse was having some success in addressing that problem, correct?
A If it was, in fact, gaining weight, yes.
Q Ultimately you were present when the vet, Ms. Jacobson --
A Dr. Jacobson.
Q -- Dr. Jacobson examined that animal, the horse, correct, that is the older brown gelding?
A Yes.
Q I'm going to call that animal Sully just for the sake of consistency. I appreciate you have no idea what the animal's name is, but I'm just going to do that so that we know what animal we're talking about, okay?
A Yeah.
Q You were present when Dr. Jacobson indicated that Sully should be destroyed immediately, correct?
A That was Dr. Jacobson's opinion, yes.
Q It shouldn't wait, it should be done effectively right then and there, or at least that was one option that was presented, wasn't it?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q You were present when she told Linda Douglas that that's what should occur, right?
A Yes.
Q Now, you know as a fact that that animal ultimately went to Kamloops and was examined by Dr. Mickleson (phonetic), correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you know as a fact that that animal continues to live and, for an animal that's aged, thrive, correct?
A Yes, I just saw that horse recently.
Q And it is thriving, isn't it?
A It's doing well, yes.
Q So not only does there appear to be some difference of opinion between yourself and Ms. Woodward in terms of how the animal had progressed between February 25th and March 10th, there also would appear, on the face of it, to be some significant difference of opinion between Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Mickleson given that animal was not put down and a year later is thriving, correct?
A There was a difference of opinion, yes.
Q Now, on your attendance on February 25th, you already mentioned that that day was -- when you got there, it was quite cold out, correct?
A It was -- yes, it was cold.
Q If I were to suggest something in the minus eight range, I don't know if you comment on that or not, would that be consistent with your recollection?
A It was cold, yes. Below freezing, cold, windy.
Q I'm sorry?
A It was cold and windy.
Q And you attended, as I recall, at about 1:15, 1:45, something like that?
A Somewhere around 1:45, yes.
Q All right. And logic would tell me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it would've been considerably colder overnight and you would've been there about the peak of the temperature, the normal daily cycle of temperature. Would you agree with that?
A It could be, yes.
Q Now, when you attended on that date, you indicated that you observed a farrier to be in attendance, correct?
A Yes, it was indicated that he was a farrier. Ms. Douglas said she was having a farrier attend.
Q Was the farrier there when you got there or did the farrier get there after you got there?
A He got there just after we were there.
Q So before you'd had any real discussion about the condition of the hooves of the animals?
A Yes.
Q So it's apparent that before ever even the observation was made about the hooves of the animals or certainly before you'd raised it with these people, that this farrier had been pre-arranged to be there and it was just fortuitous that you got there basically at the same time.
A Yes.
Q And the farrier was there to deal with the issues of the hooves on the animals, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you say that you watched him do this and apparently this person exhibited some skill at the task.
A He appeared to me to be somewhat knowledgeable of what he was doing, yes.
Q Had all the tools and seemed to get right at it and be able to make quick work of the task?
A That's correct, yes.
Q And you obviously paid enough attention to watch him do that to formulate some opinion, correct?
A Yes.
Q So did you watch for five, ten minutes? Something like that? I don't know what it takes for you to form (indiscernible) that.
A Just a few minutes, yes.
Q All right. You were trying to be pretty observant on your occasion -- on attendance on the 25th of February?
A I tried.
Q Do you recall if perhaps that farrier was a woman?
A I can't recall.
Q I'm going to suggest to you it was a lady by the name of Abby. I'm not sure if you've heard the name at all.
A No.
Q Is it possible it was a woman or do you specifically recall it being a man?
A No, I can't recall at this time.
Q To this point you've been fairly clear in your evidence in saying "he" and describing what "he" did and "his" level of skill.
A Perhaps I was mistaken.
Q Did you have the opinion that any of these animals were in distress on February 25th?
A I had definite concerns, yes. Especially the horse, the brown gelding.
Q I'm going to put a hypothetical scenario to you and ask you to comment on this. Let's assume for the moment that that older brown gelding, Sully as I've referred to it, had only been acquired a short term prior to that by Ms. Douglas and that it was in very poor condition when she acquired the horse. I'm also going to ask you to assume that she took the horse or acquired the horse because she felt that she could assist the horse and bring it towards a better level of health rather than see it deteriorate in the conditions in which she found it. So she acquired the horse and fed it senior pellets, meat pulp, sweet corn and various other feed to improve its health. And I'm going to ask you to assume that the observations of Ms. Woodward were correct, that the animal improved between the time she acquired it and certainly between February 25th and March 10th, 2003. Is that not, if you assume those facts to be true, a prudent and sound course of action for somebody to take in those circumstances?
A That would be part of it, yes.
Q What else would there be?
A Personally speaking for me, I would definitely have the animal inspected -- or had it examined by a veterinarian.
Q Do you know what was done for this animal to make it thrive the way it did -- or has since it was seized?
A Tender loving care, a special diet, a special formula of hay, ongoing veterinary care.
THE COURT: How old is the old gelding? Anybody know?
THE WITNESS: The veterinarian suspected the animal was probably around thirty years of age. At the time of the first inspection, I recall Ms. Douglas saying that she understood the animal was twenty years old.
Q Did you ever walk around the property and determine where the horses had access to?
A I was on the property, yes. We had access to the paddock and the fields to the north of the house.
Q Where the creek ran through, right?
A Yes.
Q And the creek ran through a stiller area which was a pond, correct?
A I don't necessarily recall a pond, but I remember a low lying area or a swampy area.
Q And the creek ran through that low lying or swampy area, correct?
A There was water running through that area, yes.
Q Good source of water, correct?
A The water I saw on my visits and during the search warrant were -- didn't appear to be running water through there. It was -- it seemed like it was stagnant water.
Q The creek ran through it, didn't it?
A If there was -- maybe you're referring to an underground creek or something. I don't recall seeing a creek running by anywhere.
Q The area that you're talking about is to the north of the buildings, correct?
A Yeah, north -- a northerly direction.
Q And the buildings -- the property itself being to the north of the highway, correct?
A Yes.
Q I'm going to show you a photograph and just ask you if you can recognize what generally is depicted in that photograph. If you can't get oriented, just tell us.
A Okay, the (indiscernible) would be over here.
Q All right. I'm going to ask you just to hold it up a little bit so the judge can see where you're describing and what.
A Okay, this --
Q First of all, let me stop you. You recognize this to be a photograph of a portion of the property that we're speaking of?
A It looks familiar.
THE COURT: There's a similar shot in the booklet, I think, at least of that shelter. I may be wrong.
MR. BELTON: No, it's not the same. I don't believe it's the same area, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q Sir, let me assist, perhaps. I'm going to suggest to you that that's a photograph taken looking northward away from the buildings and structures on the property where this search and seizure occurred.
A Okay.
THE COURT: Taken this year?
MR. BELTON: Taken this year.
THE COURT: By the look of the snow.
Q And there's a creek running through it, correct?
A There appears to be some sort of -- some water running through there, yes.
Q All right.
A (Indiscernible) creek.
Q Did you -- is it possible that there was a creek running through the property and although you didn't notice it, with aid of that photograph you're able to see it?
A Sir, I don't recall that, no.
Q If there was a creek there, you'd certainly agree it's a good source of water for horses, right?
A It would be, yes, if there was a creek there.
Q So whatever examination you did of the property, you were not able to -- or did not determine that there was a creek in existence for the horses to water from, correct?
A During the search warrant I recall having to assist pulling a horse out of the bog at the back of the property, the north end of the property. She was stuck up to her belly in mud.
Q Is that when people were trying to chase her to get her loaded?
A Nobody chasing her.
Q Let's keep our eye on the ball for a second. Is it possible there was a creek there that you didn't see or didn't pay attention to or didn't notice?
A If there was a creek that size, I would've noticed it and I don't recall seeing a creek.
Q So you would say that that photograph can't be a picture of this property?
A Well, I'm just saying that there was -- I don't recall a creek that size on the property at that time.
MR. BELTON: Your Honour, I'm going to ask that that photograph be marked as an exhibit for identification.
THE COURT: Okay, A for identification.

A FOR IDENTIFICATION: Photograph depicting creek.

Q One of the concerns you had was that there wasn't an adequate water source for the horses, correct?
A That's correct.
Q So, in fact, if there was a creek there, that wouldn't be a very well justified concern, would it?
A If there was a creek there, yes.
Q One of the other horses that was seized, aside from Sully, was a brown mare with a black tail and mane that was pregnant, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, for sake of referencing consistency, and again I appreciate that you would have no idea if this is the case, I'm going to refer to that horse as Cocoa, all right?
A Okay.
Q It was your opinion that Cocoa was in distress?
A Yes.
Q What was wrong with Cocoa?
A Well, when the -- after being examined by the veterinarian, her body conditioning score was not adequate and she was pregnant. There was concerns of the debris in the -- in the paddock and also lack of adequate water.
Q Right, assuming there was no creek, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, that horse, as I understand it, was scored by Dr. Jacobson as a three out of nine, correct, or do you recall?
A Three out of nine?
Q Right. Your Honour may well be aware of this. I wasn't. There's a scale of one to nine with the sort of ideal being five. Is that fair?
A For a horse, yeah, five is the norm, but understand that also a pregnant horse would -- is -- the ideal is a six.
Q Ideal is a six?
A Ideal, yes.
Q I'm going to show you two photos and I'm going to have a couple of questions for you. The dark horse that's in those photographs, can you tell whether or not that's Cocoa?
A No, I can't, sir.
Q Does that horse appear to be in distress?
A Without actually getting close to examine the animal and have a look at it, I can't say if that animal was in distress or not, sir.
Q Before I leave those photos --
THE COURT: Do you want them marked?
MR. BELTON: I will, Your Honour, in a moment.
Q If I were to suggest to you, sir, that that is a photograph showing from obviously a particular angle, the property to the north of the buildings that the horses had access to, to range in, in December of 2002, would that be consistent with your observation of the property?
A It's difficult to tell, sir. I can't --
Q In one of those photographs you can see a collection of water.
A Yes.
Q I'll call it a pond.
A Yeah, I see that.
Q Does that look familiar at all?
A No, offhand I can't -- it looks similar to the area, but I --
Q All right.
A -- can't say for sure.
Q Did you go down to the pond area to see if it was fed at all by a creek or the creek, or if it was spring fed, or do you know?
A I have no idea, sir.
Q Certainly a pond that's spring fed is a fine source of drinking water for horses.
A An open pond like that would be, yes.
MR. BELTON: Your Honour, I'm going to ask that those photos be marked respectively as exhibits for identification.
THE COURT: Okay, there's three now?
MR. BELTON: There's two more that I've added. That'll be the second and third one.
THE COURT: Okay, two additional photographs, Exhibit B-1 and B2- for identification.

B-1 FOR IDENTIFICATION: Photograph depicting two horses.

B-2 FOR IDENTIFICATION: Photograph depicting two horses and a collection of water.

Q I'm going to show you an additional photograph. It's also got a horse, similar colouring. I'm going to suggest to you that's the same horse taken in October of 2002. Can you tell by looking at that that photograph whether that horse appears to be in distress at all?
A Again, sir, without having -- you know, to be able to look at the animal itself and to be there, I can't say. This horse, from the photograph, it might be a bit thin.
Q Might be a bit thin?
A It may be a little thin, but I -- from -- it's hard to tell from the photograph.
MR. BELTON: I'd ask that also be marked for identification, Your Honour. That photograph has a caption on the bottom right corner with a date reference.
THE CLERK: C-1?
THE COURT: C-1.

C-1 FOR IDENTIFICATION: Photograph depicting horse with caption on the bottom right corner.

Q Now, I'm told in a brief discussion I had with Mr. Mickleson that he did not consider that horse to be in distress. You would disagree with that opinion? When he saw the horse on the 27th of March, 2003. You would disagree with that conclusion?
A I would --
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, I can certainly understand where my friend's going, but the difficulty is that he's asking the witness to give hearsay evidence which is compounded by the fact that it's an opinion from a veterinarian. We may be able to -- do have Mickleson's -- do you have Mickelson's letter I gave you? If I could just have a second, Your Honour?

(INDISCERNIBLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNSEL)

MR. KAAY: Your Honour, if my friend could just rephrase the question?
MR. BELTON: Let me, perhaps, address the issue, Your Honour. It's my submission that this officer/ member of the S.P.C.A. formulated an opinion and I'm simply asking him if there is an opinion from Dr. Mickleson that's different, if he disagrees with that opinion. He's entitled to and it will be a matter of argument to address how that bears on the issues and the fact that there may be different opinions about the condition of a given animal, and I think the question simply put is if that's Dr. Mickleson's opinion or if it was on March 27th, 2003, would you, Mr. Kuich, disagree with that opinion.
MR. KAAY: Your Honour, if I may? The only concern the Crown has here, it's going to require having to get something from Dr. Mickleson because the witness is being asked to comment on Dr. Mickleson's opinion about a different horse.
MR. BELTON: It's about the same horse.
THE COURT: Well, I mean -- sorry. You know, I mean -- perhaps if the witness could be stood down for a second, I might be able to spell it out a little clearer for the court.
MR. BELTON: I'm content with that.
THE COURT: Okay. Please stand down, please. Actually, outside.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

MR. KAAY: Certainly Mr. Kuich forms his opinion based on his observations when he goes and Your Honour will get evidence from Dr. Jacobson, and I understand that Dr. Mickleson did examine the animals and there is a letter to that effect and Dr. Mickleson may very well have a different opinion with respect to the condition of that horse than Dr. Jacobson. I think all that the witness can do is -- well, it's really the weight. It's a question of weight is what I'm getting at, Your Honour. I just want to be clear on that. I mean, he could say --
THE COURT: If you want me to accept his opinion and he says that someone disagreed with him, he disagrees with that opinion.
MR. KAAY: Yeah, he could have -- he can understand that Dr. Mickleson may have disagreed, but he can't, of course, give Dr. Mickleson's opinion.
THE COURT: No, no.
MR. KAAY: That's all I'm getting at. It's just a question of weight and I just wanted to be clear on that.
THE COURT: (Indiscernible) your friend put it as a hypothetical.
MR. KAAY: That's all, Your Honour. So just that the court's aware of the weight. That's all.

BRADLEY KUICH, a witness, recalled.

CROSS-EXAM BY MR. BETTON ON VOIR DIRE, continuing:

Q Sir, just so we're clear, then, you would disagree -- if that is Dr. Mickleson's opinion regarding the condition of the horse that we've described and I've referred to as Cocoa, you would disagree? Do I have that correctly?
A I would have to go with the opinion of our attending veterinarian that examined the animal on site and gave me her opinion.
Q And that opinion was given to you on March 27th, '03, as well, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, the -- I'm sure somebody will catch me if I get my terminology wrong because I don't profess to be a horse guy. The mare that had the foal, there was nothing wrong with the health of that mare, correct? If I'm understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that was only seized because the foal was being taken, or am I wrong about that?
A The foal required the mother, yes.
Q It wasn't because the mother was in distress?
A On the advice of the veterinarian, the horse was taken into our custody because of the foal. I considered the mother and the foal to both be in distress.
Q Why was the mother in distress?
A Because --
Q It was your opinion. You formulated it.
A Well, because of the condition of the -- of the foal. It was -- the foal was a newborn and it required close attention because of its injuries.
Q There are two separate things. I appreciate -- and we'll get to the issue about the foal, but the condition of the mother, aside from the fact that she was the mother of the foal, was fine, wasn't it?
A Well, and the concern of the conditions she was in, too, without adequate food. Or pardon me, adequate water and . . .
Q Again, assuming there was no creek.
A That's right.
Q So there was adequate food. That wasn't a concern, right?
A There was food there, yes. There was hay.
Q So there was no issue of food for the horses, correct?
A That's correct.
Q So the issue was access to water and if there was a creek, that's not an issue, right?
A If there was -- if there was a creek, yes, and --
Q So then we're talking about the conditions of the paddocks, right?
A M-hmm. Yes.
Q Now, these horses had access to go out into that big open field area, correct, to the south of the property?
A To the north of the property.
Q Sorry, north. My mistake. To the north?
A Yes.
Q And there certainly was nothing wrong with them being out there, correct?
A Well, there was some concerns there on my part there with the fact that one of the horses was stuck in the mud at the back and basically the other conditions of the paddock with the debris and --
Q Okay. Well, let's deal with that. We've got a great big field out there, some areas were muddy, right?
A They were wetlands.
Q But there were certainly areas where the animals could graze. Would you not agree with that? I shouldn't say graze. That may be a poor use of words. They could roam because in the winter there may or may not have been grazing capability.
A They were able to roam, yes.
Q And some of those areas were, perhaps, wet, correct?
A Some of the areas were, yes.
Q You're not suggesting, however, that in a field of numerous acres where there are some wet areas that people have to prevent the horses from having access to the wet areas, are you? Is that inappropriate? Are people not entitled to assume some common sense on the part of a horse to know where they can get into trouble and where they don't?
A Well, the horse would be familiar with the area, yes.
Q So there wasn't anything of particular concern, then, about the horses roaming out in that large field area to the north of the buildings, correct?
A In some areas of the field, yes.
Q All right. And I think -- tell me if I'm wrong, but I think we just established that it's reasonable to assume that the horses can find their way around and know what the okay areas are and what the not okay areas are.
A Usually, yes.
Q So that leads me to the suggestion that there was really nothing wrong with the horses roaming around out in that open area, correct?
A Yes.
Q So they have food. If there's a creek, they have water and I appreciate that you don't concede that, but we'll deal with that in due course. They've got an appropriate area to roam and there wasn't anything particularly wrong with the field aside from the wet areas in terms of hazards or anything else like that, correct?
A The low lying areas, yeah, there was concern there.
Q Because of the mud?
A Yes.
Q But I think we've talked about that, haven't we?
A Yeah, but if the animal was to go too deep into the mud, it could get stuck, as one did when we were there.
Q So then we have debris in the paddocks which is a concern, right?
A There was, yes.
Q So there was some bricks?
A There was bricks.
Q Do you remember the area in which the bricks where? There was a hole, right, for an area where the bricks were sort of piled up?
A Well, the horses had access to the area where the bricks were, yes.
Q Why wouldn't you just assume the horses are going to walk around the --
A Well, they could walk through it. If they were suddenly scared or spooked, they could run into it.
Q So in respect of the three mares, there wasn't any indication that they were suffering from lack of food or water, right?
A Not lack of food, but still on the advice of our veterinarian or the opinion of our veterinarian the horses were thin.
Q Some horses are thinner than others, right?
A I guess it would depend on the animal. Each animal's an individual.
Q There was certainly food there, right?
A I saw hay there, yes.
Q Now, would you agree that the wounds on the -- I've heard knees and hocks. Are those one and the same thing?
A I just say knees.
THE COURT: Hocks on the rear and knees on the front.
MR. BELTON: Okay.
Q The knees and hocks, just so we -- had abrasions on the foal, correct?
A There were open wounds, yes.
Q Were they healing?
A I have no idea if they were healing. It would be up to the vet to determine that.
Q I think we talked earlier and agreed that animals get injured. That happens, right?
A Yes.
Q And foals are not the most graceful of animals when they're newly born, correct? They tend to be pretty clumsy at getting up, down, that sort of thing?
A I don't know. Once they've got their feet, they generally get around fairly well.
Q One would expect that if a foal has wounds to its knees and hocks, that some treatment would be provided, correct? That's what you do, right?
A That's what I would do, yes.
Q And I don't know whether you can comment or not, but Hibitane I'm told is a common -- I'll call it remedy for lack of a better word that you use to treat the kinds of wounds that you saw on the foal. I don't know if you can comment on that or not.
A I can't really comment on that.
Q Okay, fair enough. But certainly you would expect the person responsible for the care of such an animal that they would take some steps to ensure that at least once the wounds are there, that they're going to heal, correct?
A If they're properly treated, yes.
Q And one would expect if you see healing, that would be suggestive of the fact that some appropriate steps were being taken. Agreed?
A Yes.
Q Now, it's my understanding that there was indication in all of these wounds on the foal that they were what's been described to me as granulating, and I'm told that that's an indication that the cuts and the wounds are healing. Can you comment one way or the other on that?
A I couldn't comment on that, no.
Q I'm going to ask you to assume for the moment that that is the case, or was the case at the time, and that the wounds were, in fact, healing. Is there more that should be done beyond taking steps to ensure that the wounds were healing?
A I think with consulting a veterinarian, they would be able to tell you what you should do to help the healing process.
Q I mean, it's not the practice of the S.P.C.A. to go out and seize every animal that gets injured, right?
A No.
Q I mean, clearly an animal that's injured in one manner or another is in distress, right?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Somebody's getting an antibiotic, are they? I see a big needle either going in your arm or in the foal's rump. I don't know.
MR. BELTON: I'm not sure, Your Honour.
Q But the issue in terms of an animal who's received an injury -- well, let me back up a bit. You're not suggesting at all that anything Ms. Douglas or Ms. (sic) Hill did specifically caused those injuries, right, in the foal?
A I'm not saying they caused the injuries. I'm saying that they were aware of the injuries, though.
Q Yeah. So the issue is what were they doing in response, correct? That's the concern that the S.P.C.A. would have, is to say, "Holy, you've got an animal that's injured. What are you doing about it?"
A That's right.
Q Mr. Hill told you he was treating the animal with Hibitane, right?
A Yes.
Q What was wrong with that?
A I don't know. I can't comment on the healing qualities of Hibitane, but . . .
Q On February 25th, did you go into any of the dog shelters?
A No.
Q So on February 25th, you wouldn't be able to tell us what the condition was inside of any of the places where the dogs were or could seek shelter. Fair?
A That's correct.
Q You'd agree with me that there were a number of areas, if I can put it that way, you've called them runs I think, where the dogs could be cordoned off, correct?
A Yeah, the -- the dog runs were cordoned off.
Q All right. One from the other to varying degrees, correct?
A There was several groups of dogs in different areas, yes.
Q Were all of the areas that had been created for the dogs inhabited? In other words, did each of the areas have some dogs in them, or can you say?
A There was one area I recall that didn't have any dogs in it on the first visit.
Q All right. On the second visit, do you recall if they were all inhabited?
A I can't recall if they were all inhabited.
Q On the third visit, do you recall if they were all inhabited?
A I don't believe they were.
Q When you went and executed the search warrant, do you recall if they were all inhabited?
A No, they weren't.
Q They were not?
A They were not (indiscernible) section.
Q I've already asked you to some extent about -- or I suppose more fairly put a proposition to you that the spring in the Okanagan and up in the area where this property is located could be a pretty mucky, ugly time of year, right?
A Can be.
Q You'd agree with me as a general proposition for dogs to be able to get outside rather than be locked inside is generally a good thing?
A It's a good thing, yes.
Q Now, you're saying, as I understand it, that all of the dogs that were seized were in distress.
A Yes.
Q So they had something about their physical condition that made them -- put them in distress?
A Yes.
Q Is matting of fur something that creates distress in an animal?
A It could, yes.
Q I'm going to ask you to look at -- sorry, the booklet of photographs is Exhibit --
THE COURT: Two.
MR. BELTON: Two?
Q I'm going to ask you to look at Exhibit number 2, photograph number 15.
A Yes.
Q The condition of the fur or coats of those animals was such that you would say that put them in the distress?
A Quite possible, yes.
Q Similarly in photograph 16?
A Yes.
Q And what's wrong with the area that they're seen in, in photograph 16?
A There's debris, there's some feces.
Q Okay, let's deal with the debris. Are you talking about that log?
A Yeah, there's a log in there, there's --
Q What's wrong with the log?
A It's just an added -- something that these dogs -- being a small breed dog like that, having to possibly to jump over something like that or --
Q Well, isn't it healthy for dogs to have something in their environment to stand on, to run around, to play, to hide behind, things like that? I always thought that was a pretty good thing.
A It's always good for a dog to have some play toys.
Q And isn't something to hide behind like a log like that? I mean, how could they hurt themselves? They're dogs. They play. They jump on things. They run around. So what's wrong with that log?
A If they're -- it's just another object that they have to contend with in there. I've been to other boarding kennels and facilities and they don't have that type of article in dog pens.
Q So do I understand that the concern would be that these dogs would somehow run into that log and injure themselves or something?
A It's possible it could happen.
Q I mean, if that were the case, if you've got four walls in a kennel, I mean, what's to stop them from running into the walls of the kennel?
A Could happen.
Q So what do you we? We put them in great, vast, open spaces with padded walls so they don't have any toys and don't have anything to play and hide around? Is that what's expected?
A Well, also if you're talking about number 16, there's also wire in that -- loose wire.
Q Where?
A In the back of the photo.
Q Okay.
A The back of the -- there's brush, there's rocks, other debris. There's --
Q There's sawdust there. Isn't that a good thing?
A If the sawdust is contaminated, it can be bad.
Q Was that sawdust contaminated?
A It was, yes.
Q Did you do an examination to determine where the dogs could go and what all of their areas included? In other words, how they get from one part of the run or the area that they're in into other areas? Did you sort of track through and see where they could get to?
A Yeah, there was some pathways or areas where you'd have to -- at least four runs -- four of the dog runs, they had access to one building and --
Q And in the building were separate areas, correct?
A There was some separate areas, yes.
Q I want to refer you to Exhibit 11-3. Is that animal in distress?
A Very little water. The water is filled with debris. The dog food also has some debris in it.
Q It seems to me it would be pretty -- the dog looks fine. The fur sure looks good, doesn't it?
A The fur does look -- on the tail there's some matting.
Q Really? Where? Whereabouts?
A Right here on the tail. There is some.
Q There's some darker brown area, I suppose, if I'm seeing the animal right. The tail's sort of fanned out or the hair on the tail's sort of fanned out and there's some dark in the middle of that. That's what you're referring to?
A Yes.
Q Straw on the floor of a kennel is a good thing, right?
A It can be, yes.
Q Is there anything wrong with the straw that's visible in there in that photograph?
A I don't know. It could be contaminated. There could be feces or urine in there.
Q You guys took the photos. I assume they're to depict something.
A Yeah, there was a strong odour in there.
Q As I understand it, on each of the occasions -- I may be wrong and tell me if I am. On each of the occasions that you went there, you arrived to find either or both of Mr. Hill and Ms. Douglas in the process of watering and feeding various of the animals. Is that not true?
A Yes.
Q It is?
A It's true, yes.
Q And those were activities that were underway upon your arrival, correct?
A Yes.
Q The nature of dogs is that they tear around and they kick up stuff that's in their kennels and that's how it can find its way in water containers, correct?
A It can happen, yes.
Q So what happens is you go and you clean them up, right?
A That's correct, yeah. Usually first thing in the morning.
Q I want you to go to photograph number 11 in Exhibit 2. What was wrong with that?
A The water dishes are dirty.
Q So just so that I'm sure what you say is required for water dishes, and I appreciate that I'm dissecting things a little bit here, but we're talking about animals being in distress. What's required of a water dish?
A It should be clean potable water, a clean container.
Q So you should wash the container every what, day, week, month?
A Probably every day would be a good idea. That's what I do with my dog.
Q I must be a bad man. I haven't cleaned my cat's water dish in some time. Is that what's expected?
A I would expect to see clean water containers with clean, potable water in it.
Q Was there any indication that the condition of any of the water dishes was such that it was adversely affecting the health of the animals? Was there any evidence of that that you know of?
A Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q I want you to look at photograph number 10 and I'm going to ask you just to, by way of reference, scan at photographs number 12 and 14. It's my understanding that the animals in photographs 12 and 14 had access to various rooms or areas within the building that's shown in photograph number 10. Would you agree with that?
A Yes.
Q And photograph number 11 is one of the areas within the building that's shown in photograph 10?
A Yes.
Q From some of the areas that were created for the dogs, they had direct access to the interior of their house, didn't they?
A The interior of the --
Q Of the residence, or can you say?
A There were dogs in the house when we attended with the search warrant.
Q And just so we're clear in terms of the proposition, I'm suggesting to you that there were two separate accesses to the actual interior of the residence available to dogs in certain of the locations that they -- of the runs outside. Now, I don't know whether you can -- whether you know that or can say one way or the other. I'm just asking you if you made that observation.
A I didn't make that observation, no.
THE COURT: Mr. Betton, how much longer do you think you'll be? My concern is I still have three prisoners and --
MR. BELTON: I'll be some time, Your Honour.
THE COURT: So we're not going to finish.
MR. BELTON: We're not. We still have Mr. McDonald's matter. I, to be honest, lost track of --
THE COURT: The --
MR. BELTON: Which won't take very long, but --
MR. KAAY: There's two witnesses for the Crown here on that, Your Honour.
THE COURT: That's what everybody said and I'm still on the first witness. Mr. Kuich, I'm going to stand you down. We're going to have to find -- how much? It sounds like a day at least.
MR. BELTON: We'll need a day for sure, Your Honour. Yes, we'll definitely need a day.
THE COURT: Because you're under cross-examination, it's not appropriate that you discuss your testimony with anyone until your cross has been completed.
THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

THE COURT: This will go back to the trial coordinator to fix a one day -- clear one day --
THE CLERK: (Indiscernible)
THE COURT: Tomorrow, then. Are the prisoners ready to go? I'm leaving at 4:00.

(INDISCERNIBLE DISCUSSION)

THE COURT: Are you calling Mickleson?
MR. BELTON: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Is Mickleson being called?
MR. BELTON: Well, I'm certainly going to be pressing
the Crown to call him as part of the Crown's case. I'm concerned about my clients' ability given the expense of getting him here.
THE COURT: If we've got conflicting opinions --
MR. BELTON: I certainly am --
THE COURT: -- I'm concerned about proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
MR. KAAY: One of the things, Your Honour, and I was speaking to my friend about that, is we do have the report from Dr. Mickleson. It might be something where we might be able to get some follow-up by way of letter or something so that we don't have to actually bring the doctor, who I understand is in Kamloops, here. So it might be something we might be able to resolve and come to common ground on, but -- if we have to.
THE COURT: Keep your head up and look at the forest, not just the trees.
MR. KAAY: I will, Your Honour.
THE COURT: If you've got one saying black and the other white --
MR. KAAY: There's going to be some -- I've spoken to my friend about this and I'll be speaking to Ms. Jacobson again and we'll hopefully have some more disclosure for my friend on that.
THE COURT: Okay.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO FEBRUARY 24, 2005, TO FIX A DATE FOR CONTINUATION)

May 17, 2005/sah

Notes to the transcript (1) The time line of inspections and seizure
AAS -- Monday, 23 May 2005, at 12:12 p.m.

I ask once again for the SPCA to get better laws, not bigger guns
Jennifer Dickson, Defendant -- Monday, 23 May 2005, at 9:46 p.m.

Notes to the Transcript (2); SPCA Constables not trained in animal welfare
AAS -- Thursday, 26 May 2005, at 2:18 p.m.

Dealing - day in, day out - with various kinds of animals in all kinds of circumstances requires highly skilled people
Ali Yazman -- Thursday, 26 May 2005, at 2:21 p.m.

Animal Welfare Certificate Program: is this course required for SPCA employees? *LINK*
AAS -- Thursday, 26 May 2005, at 2:24 p.m.

Notes to the Transcript (3): the Farrier
AAS -- Friday, 27 May 2005, at 12:37 p.m.

Notes to the Transcript (4): SPCA vet, Dr Teresa Jacobson, recommended the horse Sully be immediately euthanized. A year later she is thriving
AAS -- Friday, 27 May 2005, at 1:36 p.m.

Notes to the Transcript (5): "The Mystery of the Creek" (that can only be seen in court photographs unless you're the SPCA in which case the creek may or may not be there)
AAS -- Friday, 27 May 2005, at 5:33 p.m.

Notes to the seizure (6) Dr Jacobson again: the horse Cocoa and her foal: a shameful farce (more on the "Mystery of The Creek That Isn't There")
AAS -- Sunday, 5 June 2005, at 8:39 a.m.

See the AAS web section on SPCA seizures *LINK*
AAS -- Sunday, 5 June 2005, at 8:44 a.m.

The Mystery of the Warrant" The plot sickens.
AAS -- Wednesday, 8 June 2005, at 5:39 p.m.

The money - No mystery about that!
AAS -- Wednesday, 8 June 2005, at 6:22 p.m.

The well-known danger of logs and holes are now grounds for taking away your animals, and not a moment too soon!
AAS -- Wednesday, 8 June 2005, at 6:38 p.m.

Ruthless to animals, ruthless to people - An interview with Linda Douglas
AAS -- Wednesday, 8 June 2005, at 6:57 p.m.