R v Raffle, 2004 BCPC
Pled guilty.
R v Parkinson, 2011 BCPC File 106566
Violation of previous court order- had custody of more than 4 animals, which were unneutered.
Parkinson, a dog breeder, neglected the animals in her care. Of her 42 dogs, their fur was matted (some with fecal matter), dirty, and wet. They had overgrown nails and dental issues. Of her 12 cats, their fur was matted and dirty, their eyes were runny, and they had dental issues.
R v Parkinson, 2010 BCPC File 69309
Parkinson, a dog breeder, neglected the animals in her care. Of her 42 dogs, their fur was matted (some with fecal matter), dirty, and wet. They had overgrown nails and dental issues. Of her 12 cats, their fur was matted and dirty, their eyes were runny, and they had dental issues.
McAnerin v BCSPCA, 2004 BCSC 1430
Petitioners applied for judicial review of the seizure and detention of her 100 animals. Petitioner seeks an order quashing the notice of seizure and notice of disposition and an order in the nature of mandamus compelling the return of the animals and for damages.
Authorities observed: dirty thin dogs chained to cars with no food or water; limping horse with no food or water in field littered with debris; large amount of feces in house; goat tethered with no food or water.
Application for JR denied: there was evidence that reasonably supports the opinion of the constable that the animals were in distress
R v Materi, 2005 BCPC 85
Materi’s horses had inadequate shelter and scarcely any hay. They were severely emaciated and in physical pain. Of his 87 dogs, the vast majority had yeast infections in their ears. They exhibited open wounds from fighting each other. Some had distended abdomens and parasites; all were extremely thin. Court found that the defendant was running a “puppy mill.”
Serious neglect, no sufficient shelter, food or veterinary care for horses; Horses had skin growing over harnesses; no hoof care. Dogs kept in high density enclosures; Encloses were not cleaned and had excrement everywhere; Dogs had yeast infections in ears and periodontal diseases.
Found guilty, sentence: (1) 6 month conditional sentence to be served in community (24 hour house arrest); (2) Prohibition from owning any animals for life.
R v Judd, 2007 BCPC File 79736-1
Judd was former dog breeder battling depression and alcoholism at the time.
Haughton v BCSPCA, 2010 BCSC 406
The BCSPCA seeks a declaration of the costs incurred for the care of Haughton’s cats and dogs as a result of the seizure by the society on July 13, 2009.
The Society sought $35,815.00 for the animals. Haughton argues that the cost of care is unreasonable.
The seizure had been deemed reasonable as cited at Haughton v BCSPCA 2009 BCSC 1773. Following this decision, Haughton has fixed her property and the SPCA is ready to return her animals upon payment of the account.
The trial judge breaks down the calculations for the amount required by shelters to house cats and dogs, per day, and thus, the amount that is reasonably required to be paid back to an SPCA when a pet is seized.
The trial judge found that the SPCA had incurred $34,075.09 for the care of Houghton’s cats and dogs. Haughton had 10 days to pay the restitution in order to keep her pets.
Haughton v BCSPCA, 2009 BCSC 1773
Haughton seeks judicial review of decisions made my BCSPCA Special Provincial Constables.
Haughton breeds Great Danes and exotic cats on her ranch. Haughton travels to Alberta for three to four days per month to tend to her ranch in Alberta. During these period, her son, Jason, is to tend to the animals. At the time in question, Haughton was away for longer than anticipated.
SPC received a complaint from Copeland who was concerned for the animals and believed they had been left unattended. SPC Wiltse left a notice, which was not answered, and subsequently obtained a warrant to search the premises. At this time, it was observed that the animals were in distress and taken into SPCA custody.
Haughton holds that the BCSPCA treated her unfairly, that their actions were hasty, and that the assertion that the animals were in “distress” was unreasonable.
It was concluded that Haughton was not accorded natural justice and procedural fairness, and the matter was returned to the BCSPCA for further reconsideration. The cats were ordered to be returned, and the dogs should be reconsidered upon further inspection.
R v Cho & Cho, 2010 BCPC File 100952
After initial surrender/removal of 23 cats/kittens, Cho signed agreement to continue to contain and surrender all but 4 cats, and to provide those 4 cats with flea treatment, suitable quantity of food, clean water, improved ventilation and keep the residence clean of feces. Cho later surrendered 6 more cats, and upon final recheck of house, litter boxes were filthy, no flea treatment had been obtained, there was lack of clean water or suitable quantity of food, and premises emitted heavy, foul odour. Discovered more cats/kittens, and a dead cat. Guilty plea.