SPCA Special Provincial Constable Bradley Kuich:

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 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.

SPCA Officer Kuich says that Sully did not put on weight between the first inspection, February 25, 2003 and the second inspection, March. SPCA Officer Kathy Woodward says Sully did put on weight. They are at the same inspections, they work together, they had a chance to compare opinions. Hypothetically, a room full of monkeys might have done a better job of this case.

This is not the first case where the diagnosis by the SPCA's chosen vet, Dr Teresa Jacobson, has been used, with serious consequences, by the SPCA. In this case, according to the SPCA, she recommended immediate euthanasia of a horse that is thriving a year later and whose condition had improved in the thirteen days between inspections according to Constable Woodward. It is a very good thing that, in this case, Constable Kuich did not act on Dr Jacobson's professional opinion. The trial was suddenly ended by the Crown before Dr Jacobson could be examined so we don't know if she would have contradicted Constable Kuich's sworn testimony.