Carter’s farm was variously described as a ‘disaster’ and a ‘hazard zone.’ Her animals were severely neglected. There was debris, junk, and faeces scattered all across her barn. There were corpses of a dog, a chicken, and four rabbits. Some of the stalls contained faeces up to a metre high. Her foals were caked in faeces, flakes, and scales. One of them had died and was left to rot in a tiny stall. Her horses were deprived of adequate food, shelter, and water.
Puppy mill: 57 dogs in muddy yard without adequate food, shelter, or care. Failed to meet generally accepted practices for dog kennel. Charged but found not guilty of two counts under the Criminal Code. Found guilty of one count of causing animals to be in distress contrary to the Animal Protection Act.
The Loerzels operated an elk farm (Trad Industries). After government officials and members of the Saskatchewan SPCA visited the farm, saw starving animals; charges were laid. The Loerzels and Trad were charged with causing or permitting elk to be or to continue to be in distress. They were convicted after a lengthy trial and each fined $3,500. Appeal dismissed. Strict liability offence.
A husband and wife owned and operated what appears to be a “puppy mill” operation. Several dogs had died as a result of the treatment and most were living in deplorable conditions + they operated without a license.
The accused owns a business (“Contrôle Sanitaire des Animaux Enreg.”). He takes care of euthanizing stray animals that are not reclaimed after 3 days. Unfortunately, his euthanasia system, powered by a motor, causes pain and burns to the mucous membranes and respiratory tract of the animals. The defendant could have easily, at a reasonable cost, better equipped his system so that animals were not subjected to such pain and suffering.
A volunteer of the SPCA found several dogs in pens or chained on the property of the accused (Mr. and Mrs. Clarke) without food or water. The circumstances were allegedly unchanged on a third visit to the site, so the volunteer had all dogs seized and placed in new homes, including the healthy dogs. No explanation had ever been given to the Clarkes as to why the dogs were seized. According to the judge, the volunteer was in no position to conduct a proper investigation under the criminal code and should not have been given this authority by the SPCA.
A veterinarian’s examination of the dogs showed that one was too thin but not necessarily underfed, and the others were generally in good condition with no evidence of dehydration. Mr. and Mrs. Clarke were charged with cruelty to animals with little to no supportive evidence. Both were then acquitted as the evidence was insufficient in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that either Mr. or Mrs. Clarke willfully allowed or caused their animals to suffer. The mere fact that the dogs were thin was not proof of cruelty in and of itself.