"The SPCA should have offered to work with Peiper, not against him, after all, that is its mandate. And it is the responsible way to deal with this situation." Comment from a correspondent

Exactly what AAS has been saying for the last year when we realized that the SPCA had changed from doing no cruelty prevention to questionable cruelty prevention. And the reason is money, not animal welfare. This statement is proved by the fact that many of the animals seized are put in worse facilities than where they were seized from, many are killed, and some even die of the diseased conditions at most (probably all) SPCAs.

The SPCA's mandate, as well as the PCA Act, makes clear that animal welfare is the SPCA's priority, and seizing animals is often counter to the animals' welfare - improving conditions for the animals where they are familiar with is the best welfare, not being held in SPCA cells and killed or sold to strangers. And the SPCA is first supposed to advise owners of any conditions that must be addressed - before taking legal action. But that would not interest the media and would not generate millions in donations. And that is all that this is about....the SPCA actually brings the media with it, another violation of the law.

The PCA Act, by saying that the owner must be permitted to relieve the conditions causing the alleged distress before the SPCA may seize, reflects that animal welfare takes precedence over seizure and that there is a lack of intent to inflict suffering. In fact, the Act further says that the SPCA may not even apply for a warrant until it is has informed the owner of the alleged distress and permitted the owner to take steps to relieve the alleged distress. The Act says that the SPCA may apply for a warrant if it believes on reasonable grounds that there is an animal in distress. The word of a stranger making a complaint should not be "reasonable" grounds to grab people's private property without confirming the complaint. If conditions are found to be causing distress, the next step, as laid out by the Act, is to give the owners instructions and a reasonable amount of time to correct the conditions causing the distress. If the owner cannot be found, or will not make the necessary changes, then the SPCA can get a warrant to seize.

At least that is the legal opinion that AAS obtained and the precedent is Regina v. Ann Brown. http://www.animaladvocates.com/ILLEGAL-SEIZURES/Regina-vs-Ann-Brown.htm The BC Supreme Court found differently in the case of Regina v. Sudweeks, creating ambiguity in the proper interpretation of s.11 which a superior court will have to clarify. http://www.animaladvocates.com/ILLEGAL-SEIZURES/Regina-v.Sudweeks.htm

PCA Act: Authority to enter with a warrant
13 (1) An authorized agent who believes, on reasonable grounds,

(a) that there is an animal in distress in any premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel, or

(b) that an offence under section 24 has been committed and that there is in any premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel, any thing that will afford evidence of that offence,

may enter the premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel with a warrant issued under subsection (2) for the purpose of

(c) determining whether any action authorized by this Act should be taken to relieve the animal's distress, or

(d) searching for any thing that will afford evidence of an offence under section 24.

(2) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in the prescribed form that there are reasonable grounds

(a) under paragraph (1) (a), may issue a warrant in the prescribed form authorizing an authorized agent to enter the premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel for the purpose of taking any action authorized by this Act to relieve the animal's distress, and

(b) under paragraph (1) (b), may issue a warrant in the prescribed form authorizing an authorized agent to enter the premises, vehicle, aircraft or vessel for the purpose of searching for the thing that will afford evidence of an offence under section 24.

(3) A justice may issue a warrant under subsection (2) for either or both of the purposes referred to in that subsection.

(4) A warrant issued under subsection (2) is subject to the conditions specified in the warrant.

Relieving distress in animals
11 If an authorized agent is of the opinion that an animal is in distress and the person responsible for the animal

(a) does not promptly take steps that will relieve its distress, or

(b) cannot be found immediately and informed of the animal's distress,

the authorized agent may, in accordance with sections 13 and 14, take any action that the authorized agent considers necessary to relieve the animal's distress, including, without limitation, taking custody of the animal and arranging for food, water, shelter and veterinary treatment for it.