Pled guilty.
Guilty plea
Recovered 1 full bird and 2 heads. Guilty plea. No fine because inability to pay. Daniels required to continue treatment for his anti-social psychopathic personality disorder and attend any and all programs to manage his disorder to ensure he’s not a danger to himself or others.
Anthony’s dogs were emaciated and malnourished. He failed to provide them with adequate shelter and medical treatment. Guilty plea; criminal charges stayed. One dog euthanized due to poor health.
UVic applied to set aside injunction in a petition by Cassels for order prohibiting UVic from killing rabbits on campus. Cassells failed to establish she had a private right or that she would suffer special damage peculiar to herself sufficient to establish her legal entitlement to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to continue the injunction. Cassells had no legal, equitable or proprietary interest in the rabbits. Cassells did not acquire the necessary standing because of the potential damage to her reputation as an activist or politician that could result from the University’s continued killing of rabbits despite her efforts. The injunction could not be maintained on the basis of public interest, where there had been no challenge to the legislation underlying the Ministry’s handling of the matter.
Application allowed – injunction set aside, Cassels’ petition dismissed.
Dog had sore on paw. Cats in distress – one had to be euthanized: they were kept in a trailer-like facility with no ventilation and a build up of fecal matter from 4 to 18 inches deep; had respiratory problems, nasal discharges, ear mites and fleas, had disease.
Appeal by Ulmer from BCSC decision to dismiss her application for judicial review of decision to seize and not to return her cats. The respondent was not required, as a matter of law, to provide the appellant time in which to relieve the animals’ distress. In the present case, it was reasonable not to do so, as the respondent had been in touch with the appellant regarding its concerns one week prior to the seizure of the animals. It was reasonable for the respondent to conclude that the appellant would not promptly take steps to relieve their distress.
Appeal dismissed: (1) It was appropriate of SPCA to seize animals; (2) It was reasonable for SPCA to refuse to return the animals.
Further application for reconsideration was successful in Ulmer v SPCA 2011 BCSC 1704:https://canlii.ca/t/fpbg7
Application by pet owner for judicial review of the decision of the SPCA to take custody of 70 cats and one hen and their refusal to return the animals to her. Approximately 73 cats and one chicken were housed in a garage with no ventilation or daylight. Other cats were housed in overcrowded kennels and travelling crates and in many of the kennels there was a combination of no food, clean water, litter or bedding. Many of the cats were lying in feces and urine, and were skinny, distressed, lethargic and filthy. Decision to seize the animals was reasonable; decision to not return the animals was reasonable; and procedural fairness did not require applicant to receive an oral hearing. Oral hearing not necessary for procedural fairness because of abundance of written material before the society manager.
Application dismissed.
Guilty plea.
Cats living in house in feces and urine; exposure to ammonia from urine caused cats to suffer from lung ailments, eye problems, scalding of foot pads, muscle atrophy, diarrhea, internal parasites and ear mites. 27 were so ill they had to be euthanized.