For the reasons stated above, it is my view that the involvement of a photographer and a video camera operator in the execution of this warrant was unnecessary and improper. To that extent, the execution of the warrant in this case was carried out in an "unreasonable" fashion, within the meaning of Section 8 of the Charter.

Was this the case that put a stop to the SPCA's illegal bringing of the media with it to its "heroic seizures" (of animals that suffered far less where they were seized from than they were once the SPCA got its hands on them)? We had noticed that the SPCA seems to have stopped this flagrant, even illegal) abuse of its statutory powers. In our posts on the very revealing Douglas/Hill seizure we wondered who or what cramped the SPCA's style. (Well worth the read, much of it is very funny, in a slapstick sort of way. Starts here: http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/9203)