November 24, 2005

CONFIDENTIAL

AAS comment: Confidentiality cannot be imposed after the fact, it must be agreed to before the fact. Putting "confidential at the top of this letter does not oblige the recipient to obey. Once they are sent the letter, it is theirs and they can agree or not to confidentiality. A lot of recipients of this letter paid no attention to Ms Troman's injunction and sent their letter to us.

Re: BC SPCA Defamation Litigation

Thank you for your letter of October 13th, 2005 regarding the defamation action in which the BC SPCA is plaintiff and the Animal Advocates Society and various individuals are defendants. (I shall refer to the latter collectively, as “AAS defendants”.) I apologize for the delay in responding to you.

You have expressed concerns about the allocation, by the BC SPCA, of money and other resources to the pursuit of that litigation. The purpose of this letter is to respond to those concerns.

You will appreciate that while the dispute between the BC SPCA and AAS defendants is before the court, I am greatly restricted in what I can say about it.

Judy Stone comment: Any restrictions are self-imposed. There is no court order to prevent Ms Troman from commenting, and in fact Ms Troman goes on to comment at length.

Similarly, insofar as the BC SPCA’s claims relate to injury to its reputation caused by materials published on the AAS website by or with the involvement of the AAS defendants, the BC SPCA cannot enter into public discussion about the subject of the litigation or its merits because to do so could attract more attention to that defamatory material.

Judy Stone comment: Attracting more attention to AAS's material is exactly what will happen if the SPCA proceeds to court and this catch-22 the SPCA has created for itself is probably why this action is more than 15 months old.

(It is for that reason that this letter is marked “confidential” and that the public “debate” being led by the AAS about the litigation is entirely one-sided.) However, because you have written directly to the BC SPCA and specifically questioned its pursuit of the defamation action, I will take this opportunity to respond. But I emphasize again that I can do so only within the strict limits that govern what I can properly say about a lawsuit that is currently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

First, I wish to stress that the BC SPCA came very reluctantly to the conclusion that, in order to protect its reputation from permanent, long-term damage and obtain compensation for itself for the damage already suffered, it had to commence a defamation action.

Judy Stone comment: We know of four other instances where the SPCA has used its power and its money to attempt to terrorize critics into silence, and this makes it easy to believe that the SPCA actually likes to use the fear of financial ruin to keep knowledge of some of its actions from the public.

That decision followed unsuccessful efforts to cause the AAS defendants to cease their defamatory conduct voluntarily, without the need of litigation. Thereafter, the BC SPCA sought to find common ground with the AAS defendants through the mechanism of mediation, hoping that the cost and inconvenience of the litigation to all concerned might be avoided by obtaining an early, consensual resolution of the dispute. The AAS defendants have resisted that effort at every stage.

Judy Stone comment: It was the SPCA that refused our request for less expensive private mediation and insisted on expensive court-ordered mediation. The court's regulations say that the cost of the mediation is to be shared equally between all the parties to the action. The SPCA is only one party of eleven so it only has to pay 1/11th of the cost and I have to pay 10/11th. It dragged ten other people into the suit in an attempt to terrify my friends into begging me to back down, but it misjudged my friends: not one of them will sell out their principles. It named people who had not ever posted a word; it named people who hadn't been Directors of AAS for years. The SPCA also stuck in a few Jane Does and Richard Roes so that it could go on naming defendants ad infinitum, thereby trying to frighten off future posters and diluting the costs of mediation even more. We objected to that cost-sharing and the SPCA's lawyers didn't even bother to answer. We objected to the SPCA choosing which of its Directors would attend mediation, asking that every Director attend. Again, the SPCA's lawyers didn't bother to reply. We objected to a proposed pre-mediation agreement that would have imposed silence on us, before we even got in the door. But being able to speak freely is what we are fighting for, so we refused to sign that pre-mediation agreement, and there the matter rests. The ball is in the SPCA's court - where it belongs - as this is their lawsuit.

Second, the BC SPCA’s lawsuit is not focused upon legitimate criticisms of BC SPCA policy and practice. It is most emphatically not an attempt to stifle debate upon the many issues about which the animal welfare community at large is deeply divided. As an active player on the animal welfare stage, the BC SPCA recognizes that it is not, and cannot be, immune from criticism—even hard-hitting criticism—from those who are differently minded regarding the policies and practices it has chosen to pursue. If criticism was all that was being leveled at the BC SPCA by the AAS defendants, there would be no lawsuit and no need for the BC SPCA to spend money to protect itself from further harms. But the BC SPCA claims that the AAS defendants have gone well beyond criticism and crossed over into the realm of defamation. Defamatory conduct is unlawful and the law provides remedies to those who suffer harm because of it. It would be irresponsible for the BC SPCA to stand idly by and permit its reputation to be attacked, again and again. Such attacks have caused injury to the BC SPCA by impugning the integrity and competence of those who are employed by it, those who serve on its board, and those who serve as its volunteers. There can be no doubt that those attacks have affected the BC SPCA’s ability to fund its programs through donations and other activities. It is the duty of the Board of Directors to protect the Society from risk and harm, therefore we felt we had no choice but to take this action. This pattern cannot be permitted to continue unchecked.

It is ironic indeed that the AAS defendants should continue to publish and repeat their defamatory condemnations and, as well, attempt to recruit BC SPCA donors...

Judy Stone comment: This is blatantly untrue. I have been scrupulously careful from the very beginning to never encourage anyone to donate to AAS instead of the SPCA. I haven't even encouraged anyone not to donate to the SPCA. When asked who one ought to donate to I name other animal welfare groups that I trust. If anyone chooses to stop donating to the SPCA because of something they have read on the AAS website, and if what they have read is true, then it is the SPCA's own actions, reported by AAS, that have caused the loss of a donation. The SPCA can increase the damage it is doing itself a hundredfold by putting all our 50 years of evidence before a court and the media, and it will still be the SPCA that is harming itself. If the SPCA says what we write is not true, it has chosen not to correct us all this time. Surely that is the first step that one takes if one believes a statement is incorrect? Many people have written the SPCA, asking for confirmation of information, and have been ignored.

...other members of the public and even government officials to dissuade the Society from spending the money it needs to spend in order to defend itself. I hasten to repeat that what is at issue in the defamation lawsuit is not the rights of the AAS defendants, and others, to offer criticisms of the BC SPCA’s policies and practices; rather, the lawsuit is concerned with the right of the BC SPCA to carry on its activities free from a continuous barrage of unlawful, public vilification. The AAS defendants would have you believe that all they are doing is exercising their constitutionally protected right of free speech. In this regard, the following quotation from a recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal in another defamation case is apt:

“When analysed, this is an argument that every citizen has a right, protected by law, to publish to all and sundry, of and concerning persons who hold and publicly profess objectionable opinions, defamatory statements. No authority was cited in support of such a broad concept of occasion of qualified privilege. If adopted, such a concept would enable every citizen to arrogate unto himself the right to decide, according to his view of the public good, when reputations may be ruined.

I do not accept that. The citizen’s right of free speech neither imposes upon him a duty, nor gives him a right, to damage the reputations of others.” (emphasis added)

The animals of this province, and the many citizens who look to the BC SPCA to safeguard those animals from harm, deserve to have animal welfare issues championed by a society that is robust and strong, and not handicapped and beleaguered by the adverse effects upon reputation that result from an unrelenting campaign of defamatory attacks.

Judy Stone comment: To safeguard animals from harm inflicted by the SPCA is the reason none of us will back down. We have more than enough examples of the harm that the SPCA does - directly - to the animals in its "care". And I have said from the very beginning that I do not want the SPCA to disappear, but in fact I want an SPCA strong enough financially to prevent cruelty to animals and to do real animal welfare. Because I hoped that the latest CEO would make the SPCA honest, I even held off posting terrible information I was privy to, arguing that to damage the SPCA financially would hamper the new CEO's efforts to reform the SPCA. If the SPCA would only become honest the criticism and number of critics would diminish sharply; but the opposite is happening; more and more critics are speaking out. Does the SPCA imagine it can silence every one of them?

It is for that reason that the BC SPCA, with great reluctance, came to the conclusion (after trying other, non-litigious methods) that it had no alternative but to turn to the courts for assistance in protecting it from further harms and compensating it for the harms it has already suffered.

Judy Stone comment: What other, non-litigious methods is Ms Troman referring to that we don't know about? The first word from the SPCA after the AAS website was launched was from its then-law firm, Owen Bird, threatening to destroy me if I didn't remove everything. The SPCA has never asked to meet with me, it has never sent a letter of correction, it has ignored my letters asking for information.

Thank you for your letter, and for the thoughtful attention that I anticipate you will give to the explanation I have provided in this response.

Yours truly,

Mary Lou Troman
President (Volunteer)

BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

c: Board of Directors