EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. KAAY ON VOIR DIRE:

Q And prior to your employment with the S.P.C.A., I understand that you were a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for approximately twenty-two years.

A That's correct.

Q And your duties right now with the S.P.C.A. include investigating complaints of possible animal cruelty under the Criminal Code, as well as provincial legislation such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?

A That's correct.

Q And do you have any special training or experience in terms of looking at those types of cases in terms of animal management techniques or strategies?

A Nothing specific, no.

The SPCA is involved with the Animal Welfare Certificate Program at the University College of the Cariboo. This course ought to be a requirement for all SPCA employees. It is indicative of the SPCA's way of doing things that an officer of the law, charged with doing what is best for animals, and charged with upholding the reputation of the BC SPCA, had not had to take this course. The SPCA's reputation was in tatters almost from the outset of this trial. That a BC SPCA Special Constable, a twenty-two year RCMP member, could run an investigation like a Keystone Cops movie, indicates an attitude that is repeated in the way the SPCA runs its "shelters" as well as its law enforcement. It acts as though it can get away with anything. The SPCA has got away with fooling the public and the government for over five decades. It acts as though there is no public oversight. There is no public oversight. No wonder the employees act the way this case demonstrates. SPCA Constables are either given the go-ahead to act like this or there is no oversight of the SPCA's Constables by the SPCA itself, or at least, not by those directly and ultimately responsible - the Members of the Board of Directors of the BC SPCA.

Q And your reason for going to this property, sir, what was it?

A We had received concerns from the general public about the welfare of the animals at that property and we attended to speak to the owner and to do an inspection of the premise -- of the animals on the premises.

Q And when you say general public, can you be more specific?

A We'd received a complaint from a person. I can't recall the name at this time,but they had raised a concern about the animals on that particular property.

Q Did you make a note of that name anywhere?

A Yes, there was a complaint report that was filed. I didn't file it, but there was one on the file.

Q And you've maintained -- you've attended court here today, obviously, so you opened up a file in connection with this matter?

A Yes, we did.

Q And would that complaint report be included in that file?

A It would, yes.

Q Do you have the file with you here today?

A I have the file, yes.

MR. KAAY: With the court's leave, could the witness refer to the file, to the report, Your Honour?

MR. BETTON: No objection, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

A I'm sorry, Your Honour, I don't have that with me today

Brad Kuich was an RCMP officer for 22 years and yet he came to court for a trial at which he is the senior investigator not knowing the name of the complainant (and perhaps not even with the file, it is not clear), which complaint was the reason that Kuich and Woodward were apparently going to inspect Douglas/Hill's animals.