From: Annie Swift
To: (name removed)
Cc: kathi ; Lisa ; Kim Moore
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Lawyer

The bare bones of the issue is this:
On Christmas morning, I discovered an elderly dog in one of the kennels. He was semi-conscious, lying in his own feces, and unable to stand or walk.He could not eat or drink sufficiently to sustain himself due to a grapefruit sized tumour on his throat, and was skeletal and dehydrated.
A note had been left for me by the shelter superintendent to "give the dog TLC and feed it wet food". The dog had been left in the kennel for 42 hours, suffering, without receiving any veterinary attention.
A volunteer and I took pictures of the dog when we took him to the Animal Emergency Clinic and documented all that happened. The dog was euthanized a few hours later for critical distress (pain).
We reported the incident through all the proper channels, but received little response. We kept pressuring the SPCA to investigate the matter and they finally agreed. Again, there were stalling tactics and unanswered e-mails. This brought us to the end of April, when the volunteer I spoke of earlier, demanded to know the status of the investigation. She was told there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a cruelty charge. I (the only employee involved) was never interviewed, and no statement was requested of me.
The superintendent involved had 27 years of experience with the SPCA and part of his duties as a Special Provincial Constable is to do cruelty investigations. He is highly versed in animal behaviours and could not miss recognizing an animal in distress. It is soley his responsibility to ensure that a suffering animal get prompt veterinary care.
He is also the shop steward of the union.
There is a good possibility that this investigation was not done in good faith. SPCA employees have a duty to "prevent cruelty", not cause it. I believe that the SPCA wanted to avoid this information leaking to the public and buried the case.

Craig Daniell, the Chief Cruelty Investigater, stated that the investigation was dropped for 2 reasons:
1 "not being able to prove intent" as stated in the Criminal Code. (Dereliction of duty causing the suffering of an animal, is an indictable offence and shows intent in and of itself.)
2 That the superintendent was not the owner of the dog as required by the PCA Act.

However the interpretation in the PCA Act under Definitions, Part 1, interpretation and application states that:
3 - For the purpose of the Act "the person responsible for the animal includes":
a) The owner
b) The person who has custody or control over the animal

It also states that an" animal in distress":
a) is deprived of adequate food and water
b) sick, in pain or suffering
c) neglected or abused

I need a lawyer to interpret the phrasing in the Criminal Code and the PCA Act. to determine if the investigation and it's conclussion were compromised.

We will go public with it if we find that there has been wrong doings.

Thanks so much,
Annie