Judge dismisses Hamilton cruelty case out of hand
Ruling that the Hamilton-Burlington SPCA was in conflict of interest, a Hamilton judge found in favour of Cindy Pauliuk, a local horse owner accused of cruelty and neglect. But the case was still enough to ruin her

by DON STONEMAN

Last spring, a Hamilton judge exonerated a horse owner accused of cruelty and neglect, and issued a stunning rebuke against the Hamilton-Burlington SPCA that still smarts nearly a year later.
In a judgment dismissing the case posed by the Crown and SPCA against Cindy Pauliuk, a breeder of rare, Peruvian Pasos horses, Mr. Justice A. Zuraw found the SPCA relied on “publicity and high profile cases” for funding, noting that the case “has cast doubt upon the integrity of one of society’s most respected institutions, The Hamilton-Burlington SPCA.”

The judge ruled that the society was in conflict of interest when the veterinarian it called to assess the condition of the animals and order their seizure was also a director on the SPCA board. Dr. Michael Mogavero, described by the justice as “a highly qualified and highly respected professional” ordered the horses seized, boarded them on his farm for two weeks and treated them, and billed the society, and subsequently the owner, more than $6,000, the Justice wrote. He also noted that another veterinarian, Dr. Bruce Robinson, offered expert opinion for the defense that there was little wrong with the horses and commented that “Dr. Mogavero testified that while he normally gave a deep discount to the SPCA, he did not in this case.”

Dr. Mogavero has since “voluntarily” resigned from the SPCA board, says Hamilton-Burlington Chief Executive Officer Jim Sykes, even though he thinks the veterinarian did nothing wrong in treating and boarding Pauliuk’s horses.

“That was a case that we were really unhappy with,” Sykes says. “Unfortunately, a lot of the statements that were publicly made about our organization and how it really put us in question were based on his (Zuraw’s) perceptions that weren’t based on fact. I think (the justice’s) lack of accurate information and in fact his belief in fictitious information really had an impact on his understanding of that case and how it unfolded,” Sykes says.

Among many examples in the judgment, Sykes cites to support his assertion is the judge’s finding that the Ontario SPCA, of which the Hamilton Burlington SPCA is an affiliate, is "a privately incorporated company with shareholders." Sykes counters that the OSPCA "is incorporated under an act of the Provincial Legislature and does not have shareholders. It is a not-for-profit organization."

Another example Sykes bases his opinion on is the Judge’s finding that, the Hamilton-Burlington SCA "relies heavily on the publicity it can glean from high profile seizures and charges...There is a communications branch charged with this."

Sykes replies that "there is no communications branch here."

The differing views on communication may arise from the fact that there is, in fact a communications officer located at the OSPCA headquarters in Newmarket.

Though Sykes says the Crown Attorney’s office decided not to appeal, he doesn’t believe that Mogavero did anything wrong. “But is there a perception that he may have? Certainly.”

Sykes takes umbrage with another part of the judgment that says that “any appeal” by an animal owner of an SPCA case “lies initially to the board of directors of the SPCA.”
Sykes points out that the ultimate arbiter is the government-appointed Animal Care Review Board, whose members are appointed by a cabinet order in council.

Justice Zuraw found that “without publicity and high profile charges, the funds the SPCA needs to operate would no doubt dry up.” Sykes reasons “if the province doesn’t see fit to fund criminal code investigations that they mandate us to do, I don’t see how we could do it without fundraising.”

Hamilton continues to be a hotspot for SPCA complaints against animal owners. “There is definitely an increased number of SPCA cases all of a sudden,” says criminal defense lawyer Beth Bromberg, who defended horse owner Cindy Pauliuk. “It has become a sort of sub-specialty because there are so many.”

As for Cindy Pauliuk, she no longer has the horses. She says her reputation has been besmirched and she is financially ruined.BF