In a July 25th email to AAS, Craig Daniell, acting BC SCPA CEO and Manager of Cruelty Investigations, said: "Return of the animals does not affect our ability to ask for a prohibition order" (on owning animals for a period of time if the defendant is convicted).
AAS replied: "You answer only that it does not affect the SPCA's ability to 'ask' for a prohibition order. Asking is not the point at issue: 'getting' a prohibition order is the point at issue."
The point at issue is critical. Could returning animals to the owner influence a court to rule that conditions now satisfy the SPCA and so a prohibition on owning animals is not necessary or even logical?
And why would the SPCA ask for a prohibition on ownership when it is they that have returned animals to the convicted animal neglector? Wouldn't that be a bit silly?