Two complaints dated: February 26th,2003, and March 29th, 2003.
First Inspection, Offence Warning Notice issued: February 25th of 2003

[blue: Note: the complaint that Kuich says he inspected the Douglas/Hill property because of is dated the day after the inspection

Second Inspection, no Notice issued: March 10th, 2003.

Third Inspection, no Notice issued: March 21st, 2003.

Seizure: March 27th 51 dogs and pups and six horses

Q And your reason for going (on February 25, 2003, the first inspection)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.

Kuich was RCMP for 22 years yet he comes to court not knowing the name of the complainant whose complaint was the reason that he inspected Douglas/Hills's animals.

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.

Yes, he has the file, no he hasn't the file. This is the SPCA's idea of law enforcement. The trial ended suddenly. Linda Douglas told AAS that her lawyer told her that Crown realized that the information that Kuich used to obtain the warrant, the complaint, was in serious question. Douglas's lawyer told her that Kuich used his own "complaint" to obtain the warrant, in other words he did not obtain the warrant truthfully. We cannot confirm that because Crown stayed the case, luckily for the SPCA or else the whole nasty business would be a matter of public record. We say luckily for the SPCA, but we don't believe luck had much to do with it. It is our belief that the SPCA asked Crown to bury this case before it turned into a P.R. nightmare for the SPCA. The SPCA escaped by the skin of its teeth.

It could be interesting to get the warrant unsealed and see what reasons Kuich gave for obtaining it. [/ blue]