This is a ruling on an application by the accused, Ringler, pursuant to Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to exclude from his trial the evidence obtained by police officers from the private residence of the accused. It is the position of the accused that the entry, search, seizure and evidence obtained infringed both the OSPCA Act and s. 8 of the Charter.

The accused is charged with three offences under the Criminal Code; uttering threats contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a), killing four kittens contrary to s. 445, and failing to provide suitable care contrary to s. 446(1).

The issue is in balancing an individual’s right to privacy, with whether the state has the right to enter a home without warrant to protect animals (the exception of the Feeney Rule).

The applicant phoned the SPCA for assistance with his birthing cat and subsequently invited a Society Agent into his home. The Agent saw a number of cats, including three day-old kittens in a box, and three day-old kittens cut in half on the floor. The Agent directed the accused to seek veterinary care for the cats. This upset the accused, and so the agent called for back-up as the situation was deteriorating. The accused then phoned the SPCA and made threatening remarks in regards to the Agent at his residence. The accused was arrested for being intoxicated, and then the Agent and police officers entered his home to seize the kittens without the accused’s consent nor a warrant.

The respondent agreed that the warrantless entry was prima facie unreasonable, but the circumstances caused it to be reasonable by law.

The first entry was deemed unauthorized: The agent under s. 11(1) has for the purposes of enforcing of that Act the powers of a police officer. The Police Services Act imposes obligations on police officers to seek a warrant, and thus the Crown’s suggestion that the Agent has the powers of a Police Officer does not make a difference.

The second entry is deemed authorized: It is acknowledged that animals are not at the same level as a human beings and are (at the time of this decision) considered property. However, “this is not an open-ended right to treat that animal in any fashion the owner wishes.” It must be remembered that the agent was initially invited into the accused’s home and consented to showing said agent the cats (dead and alive). At this time, the Agent could have collected the cats once the accused refused to get them veterinary assistance. This then carries to after the accused had been arrested.

Conclusion: The application was dismissed. “A threat to life and limb more directly engages the values of dignity, integrity and autonomy underlying the right to privacy than does the interest in being free from minimal state intrusion.” The agent and police officers acted in good faith, and there was no violation of Section 8 Charter.