The accused kept a number of cats in a trailer that she was only accessing every once in awhile and left three cats locked inside. The smell of ammonia was very strong when the animals were finally accessed by SPCA, fecal matter everywhere, water bowl was empty and no food.
Accused had three dogs that she brought to her daughter’s house. They stayed in the vehicle and she fed them rice and broth and gave them water twice per day. They were locked in the vehicle and kept in unsanitary conditions. There were health concerns with the dogs as well: one slightly malnourished, one had a growth.
Accused was charged with two offences under s 24, Accused charged with Count 1 of distress to three dogs living for periods of time in Accused’s vehicle and Count 2 to causing distress to a cat and three kittens left in the trailer when Accused wasn’t present.
The accused tried to use defence of due diligence based on a balance of probabilities, and also addressed whether SPCA acted fairly and without animus.
Successfully charged with causing or preventing animals to be, or continue to be, in distress:
[97] Based on my findings, the SPCA officers may have placed undue focus on lack of veterinary care, but these animals were in distress for the reasons I provided above. The SPCA may have also dealt with Ms. McAnerin in a more abrupt fashion due to the previous history, but their priority was the wellbeing of her animals. I cannot find animus on their part.
[98] In conclusion, Ms. McAnerin, I find you guilty of Count 1 and Count 2 under Information 79286-1; however, I would add that the Crown had not proven certain allegations with respect to inadequate food and water in particular.