An application was filed on May 24, 2024 by Felicia Allen, Founder of the BC SPGA, in the BC Supreme court alleging that the BC SPCA is not empowered by the Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act (PCAA Act) to declare any review or appeal provisions in the PCAA Act "moot" and close the animal custody file. The presiding judge disagreed and dismissed the application with costs awarded to the BC SPCA.

Part 1: ORDER(S) SOUGHT

An order that the BC SPCA is not empowered by the Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act to declare any review or appeal provisions “moot” and close the animal custody file to bypass the BCFIRB tribunal in abandonment and distress animal custody(s) under section 10.1 and 11.

Order sought on application before Mr. Justice Ross, BC Supreme court, filed on May 24, 2024.

The Issue Before The Court

The BC SPCA seizes farm animals and domesticated pets under the care of a guardian's veterinarian or animals that are not being treated or in the care of a veterinarian.

The BC SPCA maintains that if the BC SPCA destroys the animal guardian's seized animals or pet then the BC SPCA does not have to comply with the review provision if requested by the animal guardian as specified in the PCAA Act because the BC SPCA declares it's "moot".

In so doing, the animal guardian cannot proceed to the BC Tribunal who oversees most of the animal custody claims filed by the public.

The BC SPCA has two courses of action against the public who have had animals seized: Dispute BC animal guardians in the BC FIRB Tribunal hearings and refer the guardian's file to the Crown Prosecutor for criminal prosecution in the court. In both instances the animal Guardian no longer has access to information that led to the euthanazation by the BC SPCA of their animals or pets. In both legal forums the animal guardian has no legal protection or rights. In both legal forums the BC SPCA receive their costs which must be paid by the animal guardian who also must pay their own costs.

In the same circumstances the BC SPCA closes the file so that a review or an appeal to the BCFIRB animal custody tribunal of the killing of the animals or pet is not possible by the animal guardian. The closed file however at the BC SPCA's discretion is referred to the BC Crown Prosecutor to press criminal charges on the animal guardian. The Crown Prosecutor does not have or consider any information from the animal guardian and bases the decision to proceed with criminal charges solely on the BC SPCA's investigation and related materials which the Society has refused to disclose or provide to the animal guardian.

The Review Provision In The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act (PCAA Act)

The situation before the Court related to animal seizures where the BC SPCA destroys the animal and refuses to conduct a review when requested by the animal's guardian as required by the PCAA Act under Part 3.1 - Reviews and Appeal and the sub-section heading, Review of decisions.

Felicia argued that the PCAA Act is clear that the BC SPCA must conduct a review if requested by an animal's guardian for an animal apprehended by a BC SPCA authorized agent and taken into custody under either sections 10.1 or 11:

(2) A request for a review may be made to the society

(a) in the form required by the society, and
(b) within,
(i) if section 17 (b) applies, 4 days after notice is given as required by that section, or
(ii) if section 18 applies, 14 days after notice is given as required by that section.

(3) If a review is requested in accordance with subsection (2), the society
(a) must review the decision,

and that there is no provision in the PCAA Act that enables the BC SPCA to declare the review section "moot" under any animal seizure circumstance and refuse to comply with the review if requested by the animal's guardian. Felicia argued that in the PCAA review section nor anywhere else in the PCAA Act is there a stated exemption for the BC SPCA to deny the review provision when an animal guardian requests a review of a seized animal that the Society has killed.

Felicia pointed out that the review is the occasion in which documents are exchanged by both parties and the only opportunity for the animal guardian to have access to information about the BC SPCA's investigation and the reasoning for the destruction of the animal. The review is important because otherwise the animal guardian would have to initiate a claim in the Court and make an application for an order to obtain the information. Most Canadians, according to surveys, consider their pets or animals as 'family members'. Surely the family has a right to know of the events that led to the destruction of the animal without having to blindly file a claim in a legal forum and seek an order for the release of the investigation information.

The BC SPCA relied on the fact that the animal custody tribunal (BCFIRB) that hears most animal custody claims does not hear claims where animals have been destroyed by the BC SPCA and therefore the review section is "moot".

The BC SPCA is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act unlike the RCMP where the Public can request information in regard to police investigations. Complaints about BC SPCA staff conduct and actiona go no further than the organization according to its Complaint Policy Procedures guide, For BC SPCA donors, supporters, adopters and members of the public.

[53] The SPCA Respondents submit that the SPCA is not a public body, as evidenced by its enabling legislation, and the fact that it is not listed as a public body in Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165 [FIPPA].
BC Supreme Court, March 3, 2023
Meneray v British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2023 BCSC 442

The BC Supreme Court outcome

On October 29, 2024 Mr. Justice Ross A. J. concluded that if a guardian's pet is seized and destroyed there is no right of the animal guardian under the PCA Act to have a review of the animal's seizure or the investigation that led to the destruction of the animal:

"I accept that the purpose of the legislation is to set up a review and appeal procedure for owners to seek the return of seized animals. It goes no further than that. If the animal has been destroyed, then there is no extant issue between the parties. Hence, there is no right to a review in those circumstances."
October 29, 2024 Mr. Justice Ross A. J., BC Supreme court

Imagine that a member of your family was killed by a police officer. The courts held that the police are not accountable for the killing and the killing cannot be reviewed or appealed: 95% of Canadians consider their pets family and those family members in British Columbia can be killed by the BC SPCA police with no accountability, review, course of appeal or transparency.

In the claim before the Judge, the treating veterinarian, a licensed equine specialist, had not determined that the animal was in critical distress at any time. However, the BC SPCA hired their own veterinarian, a relatively recent graduate, who determined that the animal was in critical distress and euthanized the animal. The veterinarian, Dr. Gilliland, refused the animal's treating veterinarian request to examine the corpse of the animal and she refused to consult with the treating veterinarian at any time. The veterinarians that the BC SPCA hire are working for them against the animal guardian and the animal guardian has no protection or rights in those circumstances neither do their animal's treating veterinarian. The animal guardian will be subject to injustice at all levels of appeal or review for the simple reason that when there are no laws that protect their rights there is no recourse.

Animal guardians are appealing to the BCFIRB Tribunal and the courts for the return of their animals, or justice in animal seizures, without any laws or rights to protect them or their pets. There can be no justice when only one party has laws to protect and provide rights. Judges have only legislation written for and protecting animal policing actions to refer to. BC's animal guardians are footing the BC SPCA bills at great loss and grief to themselves and their animals when there is no legislative protections or rights for them.

Animal reviews or appeals are simply different tiers of animal policing conducted by either the BCFIRB tribunal and the provincial or supreme courts.

The SPCA animal police investigations lack of Transparency and Accountability

The SPCA in Ontario relieved itself of its animal policing responsibilities as a result of a court action.

"The BC SPCA is in line with the SPCA's efforts to be non-transparent and non-accountable for its investigative actions and conduct as noted by Mr. Justice Timothy Minnema of the Ontario Superior court in regard to the Ontario SPCA in Bogaerts v Attorney General of Ontario" says Felicia. In that claim the Judge ruled that animal law enforcement by the OSPCA is unconstitutional because the agency is not sufficiently accountable or transparent. Since then the Ontario SPCA no longer conducts animal investigations which has been assumed by the provincial government with expertly trained inspectors.

"In British Columbia the Courts do not consider animal guardians or their pets. The PCAA Act was written for the BC SPCA and protects and confers rights on all of their animal policing actions which always blame or work against animal guardians and their wanted pets. The Animal Guardian Act is in the works by our Society and the animal guardian public because Justice just wont evolve in the courts in time." says Felicia.

It is easy to see that the BC SPCA has legislation confering rights and protection over all of its actions, while animal guardians have no laws with rights or protections over their lives and the lives of their pets and animals. Lawyers who represent animal guardians have no legislation to refer to or rely on when representing litigants that confers legal rights or protections for animal guardians and their pets.

When Bogaerts was appealed to the Court Of Appeal Of Ontario (COAO):

[1] This appeal considers the constitutionality of the statutory authority conferred upon inspectors and agents designated by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the “OSPCA”) to exercise the powers of a peace officer in the enforcement of laws pertaining to the welfare and prevention of cruelty to animals.

The constitutionality of an animal guardians rights or protections were not the subject matter of the Appeal because there are no laws or legislation with their rights and protections to refer to.

At paragraph 64 of the COAO decision:

[64] I have no doubt that it would be a good idea and sound public policy to make all law enforcement bodies subject to reasonable standards of transparency, accountability and adequate funding and that they be properly funded. But not all good ideas and sound public policies are constitutionally protected or mandated. Our task is not to decide what would be sound policy.

[85] To accept transparency, accountability and adequate funding as a principle of fundamental justice would, in my view, create uncertainty and necessarily involve the courts in the “adjudication of policy matters”.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“I agree. C.W. Hourigan J.A.”
“I agree. L.B. Roberts J.A.”

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bogaerts, 2019 ONCA 876

There isn't a larger class of people who are so easily exploited and financially and emotionally ruined than the BC Animal Guardian and their animals and pets.

[57] Although it is called a “society”, the SPCA is not established under the Societies Act, S.B.C. c. 18. Rather, it is continued under s. 3 of the PCAA.
BC Supreme Court, March 3, 2023
Meneray v British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2023 BCSC 442

Considering that the BC SPCA is not listed as a non-profit provincial society that must comply with the BC Societies Act with the BC Ministry of Employment, Business and Economic Development somehow the organization was issued Charity status by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Not-for-profit organizations

BC Ministry of Employment, Business and Economic Development

In British Columbia animals are considered property in a very conditional way in the law - the BC SPCA can seize your animal(s) and place a lien on your property and other assets to get their costs and there are no laws in kind protecting or conferring rights on the animal guardian and their pets.

It's a very one-sided lack of justice which consistently fails animals and their guardians who can very easily and quickly not only loose their pets but also valuable assets like their home, car, boat, etc to the BC SPCA.

The animal guardian will be subject to injustice at all levels of appeal or review for the simple reason that when there are no laws that protect their rights there is no recourse.

Another instance where Felicia fought for justice for animal guardians in the Court was in the BC Court of Appeal. Felicia had been successful in obtaining an order from the BC Supreme court for the return of her animals however the Court ordered that she must pay the BC SPCA's costs which amounted to over $40,000.00. "I thought this was completely unfair since usually the successful party is awarded costs and I had reviewed several prior court claims like this where the successful animal guardian was responsible for paying the huge costs that the BC SPCA had incurred which ultimately resulted in the animals not being returned when the guardian couldn't afford to pay the BC SPCA costs."

The Court Of Appeal hearing however presided by Madam Justice Newbury saw the situation quite differently - again from the BC SPCA's perspective. "The judge went as far as admonishing me for even suggesting that the BC SPCA should be bear the costs when the animal guardian had been successful in obtaining an order for the return of seized animals because those animals shouldn't have been seized in the first place. This despite the Judge was aware that the BC SPCA was running an $86+ million surplus at that time.

The reality is that if a non-profit Society has an $100+ million surplus according to its 2023 audited financial statements and can't afford to pay its costs when unsuccessful in fighting the BC animal public in court, how does the Court expect an animal guardian to bear both its own costs and the society's costs when successful in animal custody claims?

"You can be sure that in many animal custody instances the BC SPCA eventually destroys the animal or re-sells to strangers - an animal that was wanted by its beloved family who won and lost the rightful return because of a lack of finances and no other reason." says Felicia.

The PCAA Act confers the liability for costs of a seized animal on the animal guardian. There are no exceptions. Even if the animal guardian never sees their pet again they must pay the BC SPCA's costs according to the PCAA Act:

Costs of taking action and proceeds of disposition

20 (1) The owner of an animal taken into custody or destroyed under this Act is liable to the society for the reasonable costs incurred by the society under this Act with respect to the animal.

(2) The society may require the owner to pay all or part of the costs, with or without conditions, for which the owner is liable under subsection (1) before returning the animal.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the society may retain the proceeds of a sale or other disposition of an animal under section 17 or 18.

(4) If the proceeds of a sale or other disposition exceed the costs referred to in subsection (1), the owner of the animal may, within 6 months of the date the animal was taken into custody, claim the balance from the society.

(5) Payment of costs under subsection (2) of this section does not prevent an appeal under section 20.3.

How the BC SPCA Collects Its Costs

The BC SPCA wants its costs paid upfront before returning animals to their guardians. If the animal guardian does not have the funds to pay or refuses to pay, the BC SPCA can place a lien on the property(s) owned by the animal guardian and any assets permitted under the law which can include trucks, cars, boats and other assets.

It's a very one-sided lack of justice which consistently fails animals and their guardians who can very easily and quickly not only loose their pets but also valuable assets like their home, car, boat and life savings to the BC SPCA.

The BC Animal Guardian Act

The BC SPGA is proposing a BC Animal Guardian Act which has protections for animal guardians prior to their pets being seized - such as the right to consult with a veterinarian and or if the animal is under the traatment of a veterinarian to end the investigation - as described in the Society's Position Statements:.

The Right To Consult With A Veterinarian
An animal guardian has the right to obtain a veterinarian and have the animal(s) examined and treated by the veterinarian prior to any animal seizure. If the animal guardian’s veterinarian provides treatment, if necessary, the animal cruelty investigation is concluded.

Protection From Animal Seizures
BC Animal guardians with sick, injured or elderly animal(s) in treatment with veterinarian(s) are protected from animal seizures and prosecution.

"Far more animals suffer from a lack of veterinary care than from intentional acts of cruelty and neglect."
Paws For Hope Animal Foundation

The BC SPGA Position Statements include a provision that the BC SPCA, who are currently running a $100+ million surplus must avail struggling animal guardians of their veterinary clinics to prevent an imminent wanted animal seizure in our The Right To Avail Of BC SPCA Resources Position Statement:

The Right To Avail Of BC SPCA Resources
An animal guardian has the right to request, accept and use BC SPCA resources to prevent an animal(s) seizure and the BC SPCA must use its resources accordingly.

The public donations that encompass the huge BC SPCA surplus consists of public donations made for the care of animals. The BC SPGA believes that it is only right that the donations be used for that purpose rather than sitting in funding reserves.

BC SPCA has $104.0m in funding reserves, of which $2.1m is donor endowed.
Charity Intelligence Canada
BC SPCA's fiscal year 2023 audited financial statements

Nearly two million animals in BC live in poverty while the public donations intended for the care of animals made to the BC SPCA are kept for investment as permitted by the organization's Investment Policy. Perhaps the BC SPCA does not consider the quality of the lives of the BC animal population a good investment.

If you agree with the BC SPGA's goals and campaigns why not become a member?
Membership fees and donations are never used to pay management salaries!
Meet others like yourself who want to build a pet-friendly BC!