Vancouver – Before the Charter challenge under section 7 in regard to the BC SPCA’s enforcement practice of seizing animals from veterinary care allegedly infringing on the charter rights of pet guardians could be considered on the date set for the trial the B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma insisted that an application which had not been served to the other the party according to the Rules of Court, should be considered on the petition trial date instead.

“The Attorney General’s intent was to kill the charter challenge on the date where the Charter challenge was supposed to start its first day of trial which she succeeded in doing albeit under somewhat dubious methods unbecoming for someone in her position of authority and power.” said a spokesperson for the BC SPGA.

Mr. Justice Fowler of the B.C. Supreme court who considered the Attorney General’s application – which had not been served to Ms. Allen in time for the trial, relied on an affidavit of over 100 pages which also had not been served in time and therefore no Response to the application was before the court – noted that “Logically, an application to strike a petition should be heard before the hearing of the petition on its merits.”

The Judge agreed with the Attorney General that because the petition referred in part on the conviction of Ms. Allen’s provincial court proceedings (which had not concluded) that it was reason enough to strike the Charter challenge petition as an abuse of process under B.C. Supreme court rule 9‑5(1)(d) despite another judge of the same Court who had previously considered the petition and deemed that it was not an abuse of process under the B.C. Supreme court rules.

“Many charter challenges evolve from court judgments that are considered to be made under unfair laws alleged to be in breach of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms” said a spokesperson from the BC SPGA, “that’s generally the evolution of this country’s Charter challenges – they begin that way. Why Mr. justice Fowler did not think that should apply to this charter challenge petition is unheard of.”

Ms. Allen tried to show the judge that she was using her own experience in the provincial court as an example of how people are allegedly unfairly convicted under the existing law(s) for having an animal under veterinary treatment – after all, it was not Ms. Allen’s veterinary team comprised of an equine veterinarian and equine veterinary surgeon who had issue with her or the pony – they had not filed a complaint to the BC SPCA about Ms. Allen. It was a non-treating veterinarian by her own testimony at the provincial trial who filed the complaint to the BC SPCA without showing Ms. Allen’s veterinary team the written complaint for their response or comment. The BC SPCA also did not consult with Ms. Allen’s vet team nor did the veterinarian they hired.

Although an appeal has been filed, the B.C. Court Of Appeal has never found merit in any claim appearing before the court by a pet guardian in its entire history. Ms. Allen has stated that she has no doubt that the system and the provincial Attorney General will succeed again.

Related BC SPGA articles & campaign:
https://spga.ca/BC/justice-for-animals-people-with-pets.html

BC SPGA Press Room:
https://spga.ca/press-room.html

JOIN the Campaign for Animal Policing Reform

More BC SPGA press releases