Previously the BC SPGA outlined What to do and what happens during a SPCA Animal Cruelty Investigation. Below is information on the BC Farm Industry Review Board (BCFIRB) which hears certain animal custody and related cost decisions by the BC SPCA.
BC FIRB Appeals
The BC Farm Industry Review Board (BCFIRB) hears appeals about certain animal custody and related cost decisions of the BC SPCA:
- I asked the BC SPCA to return my animal(s). The BC SPCA told me they will not return my animal(s).
- I asked the BC SPCA to return my animal(s). The BC SPCA has not replied.
- I don’t agree with the amount of money the BC SPCA told me I must pay.
The B.C. Farm Industry Review Board (BCFIRB) is an independent administrative tribunal that operates at arm's length from government. BCFIRB's responsibilities in regard to animal custody appeals is established in the Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act.
The first substantive animal custody appeal decided under PCAA reforms that came into force on March 20, 2013 was considered by Corey Van’t Haaff, (Presiding Member) on July 29, 2013 in A.B. v. BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. The issue of how appeals are to be conducted was explained at para 83-86:
83. I do not think that appeals under Part 3.1 of the PCAA are required to be conducted as true
appeals, and I do not think that the BCFIRB is required to defer to decisions of the
Society.
84. This is not judicial review, and it is not even a right of appeal from a specialized body to a
court. It is a broad appeal from one specialized body to another – from the Society in the
first instance to BCFIRB as a specialized administrative tribunal in its own right, and
which also has specialized animal welfare knowledge in its membership. In my opinion,
the creation of a right of appeal to a specialized administrative tribunal means we cannot
automatically or blindly apply principles that were developed to govern the relationship
between courts or between courts and specialized tribunals. The important thing is not the
word “appeal” by itself. It is what the legislature intended in the larger context.
85. When we look at the reform legislation as a whole, the clear intent was to give BCFIRB,
as the specialized appeal body, full authority to operate in a way that is flexible and
accessible to lay persons, and to use its expertise to ensure that decisions are made in the
best interests of animals. Engaging in arguments about what is “the record” and how to
apply the “Palmer principles” to every piece of evidence tendered in situations that are
necessarily dynamic and unfolding, would make no sense in this context. Requiring
BCFIRB to “defer” to findings and judgments that it believes have been overtaken by
circumstances or wrong on the merits does little to enhance the interests of transparency
and accountability.
86. Courts of law are focused on the law and legal principles. BCFIRB appeals are broader
than that. There are no limits on the grounds of appeal. BCFIRB has been given broad
evidentiary and remedial powers on appeals. While the legislature could have created an
appeal or review “on the record”, it has not done so here. Instead, the legislature has gone
the other way in these reforms. It has given BCFIRB extensive evidence-gathering
powers, some of them to be used proactively. It has made the Society a “party” to appeals,
and it requires the Society to provide BCFIRB “every bylaw and document in relation to
the matter under appeal” (s. 20.3(4)), which will in many cases be much broader than the
record relied on by the reviewing officer. Included in BCFIRB’s powers is s. 40 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act: “The tribunal may receive and accept information that it
considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be
admissible in a court of law.” Collectively, these statutory provisions are not consistent
with a legislative intent to require BCFIRB to merely undertake “mini” judicial review or a
traditional judicial appeal
As noted above at pp 86, Courts of law are focused on the law and legal principles. BCFIRB appeals are broader than that. There are no limits on the grounds of appeal. BCFIRB has been given broad evidentiary and remedial powers on appeals.
The BC FIRB has not yet considered animal custody appeals where the animal guardians are compensated for 'wrong animal seizures'. The focus has been on animal guardians disputing the BC SPCA's refusal to return their animals. Financial compensation (remedy) for alleged 'wrong animal seizures" could presumably be brought to the BC FIRB hearing as pp 93 may imply:
93. In my view, the Appellant in a case like this has the onus to show that, based on the Society’s decision or based on new circumstances, the decision under appeal should be changed so as to justify a remedy. Where, as here, the Society has made a reasoned review decision, BCFIRB will consider and give respectful regard to those reasons. However, that consideration and respect does not mean the Society has a “right to be wrong” where BCFIRB believes that the decision should be changed because of a material error of fact, law or policy, or where circumstances have materially changed during the appeal period. BCFIRB can give respect to Society decisions without abdicating its statutory role to provide effective appeals.
It is also worthy to note that the Presiding member had this to say:
100. Animals get sick and injured even when they are receiving the best of care. When the Society is seeking to retain an animal, it must consider not only the animal’s condition, but must consider what acts or omissions of the owner caused or contributed to that condition.
At any stage of any of the BCFIRB appeal processes you can hire a lawyer to represent you at your own cost.
Now that you know the processes described in brief above, you can find out how the BC SPGA is advocating BC SPCA reform in support of animal and pet guardians.
