MW appealed the Nova Scotia SPCA’s seizure of his dog, Daisy, who was removed from his home on January 5, 2024 under the Animal Protection Act. The allegations of abuse were widespread and significant, with some of it caught on video uploaded to YouTube which were the source of the complaints. At the time Daisy was retrieved, the SPCA was also looking for a cat Mookie, also owned by the appellant, who was seen being squeezed by the appellant, but Mookie was never found.
The majority of the board found that despite credible video evidence of some improper handling and an unsafe environment during the “chainsaw incident”, but overall the evidence did not establish that Daisy’s health, safety or well‑being had been impaired to the statutory threshold.
Daisy was returned to MW at no cost as “the majority of the Board members found that the dog did not require ”immediate seizure” to preserve its life on January 5, 2024” (para. 130), and the seizure was improper under the purported section of the Act; the inspectors erred in going straight to removal rather than making attempts to work with MW by issuing warnings and compliance orders first (para. 132). The Board was unwilling to withhold Daisy’s return, primarily because there was no unquestionable evidence of physical or psychological abuse. After lengthy deliberation, the Board majority found that the seizure was not carried out appropriately under the Act, and was overturned.
One Board member had a final point overall dissent with the majority decision: “My primary dissent was to the creation of a dangerous environment with the use of the chain saw and axes. There was no clear evidence of the location of the animals during this video segment, and the Appellant’s erratic behavior appeared to be escalating; therefore, I feel the SPCA was justified in seizing the animals as it was in the pets’ best interest, with the knowledge that they had at the time” (para. 135).
https://canlii.ca/t/k5ws7