One of the worst life experiences people who know will tell you is loosing a beloved pet or animal(s) due to a BC SPCA animal cruelty investigation seizure. It doesn't take more than one complaint (which can be made to the BC SPCA anonymously) for a BC SPCA special provincial constable (SPC) to show up and ask for entry. If you don't allow entry, a warrant will be issued as almost soon as the SPC electronically applies for it.

Most animal guardians are not prepared for the visitation of a SPC. SPCs are not trained police officers and not subject to the professional police officer conduct that would be expected. SPC officers have the same powers as police officers, wear a distinctive uniform and using very loose and subjective provisions of the law can decide to seize animals very quickly if need be.

At the time the SPCA seized our animals, there were no animals that fit what people would consider to be distress, but that doesn’t necessarily matter to the SPCA. They define ‘distress’ on the spot, and they do it entirely subjectively.
Warren Brundage, Suzaku Sanctuary

Animal guardians are not made aware of the processes, the expense, the trauma and eventually the realization that the likelihood of seeing the pet or animal(s) again is very slim.

Statiscally, BC animal guardians are not abusers, are not people who do the unthinkable to animals, and don't run animal mills.

There are no protections or rights that an animal guardian can rely on to keep an animal from being seized. For example, even if you have a vet treating the animal for a condition, the SPC can and will seize the animal and hire a vet that is not allowed to consult with your vet, knows nothing of your animal's treatment history, yet will agree with the BC SPCA's reasons for taking the animal(s).

We need an overhaul of our law enforcement system as it serves animals. It is unacceptable and possibly unconstitutional to have laws pertaining to animals, or any other laws, enforced by a charity which is exempt from mechanisms of public accountability and transparency essential to the responsible use of such power.
- Jordan Reichert Deputy Leader, Animal Protection Party Of Canada

The BC SPCA may also issue a press release about the seizure even though no review or appeals have been held. You are now guilty as charged in the eyes of the public.

Drever almost ruined this case of real cruelty because of "playing to the media". But, as is being shown all over North America, playing to the media to get donations is what "Cruelty Seizures" is really about, not animal welfare. If the seizures were about animal welfare, most animals would not be seized but would be left in their familiar surroundings and improvements enforced through fines. If the seizures were about animal welfare, none of the animals would be summarily killed by the SPCA.
Animal Advocates Society of British Columbia

If you have a little pet or several animals, you're in for a fight when the animal is seized. One that ultimately you may not be able to afford. The financial liability for BC guardians who have pets seized is extremely high according to the provisions of the the BC Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act.

Caran was told to join the family inside her father’s home. There she found Magaw, who she thought was having an emotional breakdown.
Caran, the daughter of a BC reputable dog trainer Al Magaw, the 'miracle worker', when the BC SPCA seized his dogs.

The BC SPCA normally fight to keep seized animals as justification for taking them in the first place. If the guardian helplessly surrenders the pet, the costs are still payable to the BC SPCA. If you should succeed in obtaining the return of your animal(s) you will have to pay the BC SPCA their costs first and those will run in the hundreds to many thousands of dollars in addition to the lawyer you may have hired which will cost you $400 and up an hour.

This section on definitions is very important to the whole bill. I have a great deal of concern about the minister's comments when we talk about the definition of the word "stress." Here we have a large group of individuals -- members of the SPCA -- throughout British Columbia who will be charged with the responsibility for a specific act and given the power of enforcement, and the definition is very subjective. The interpretation of the degree of stress is wide and varied; there may be hundreds, if not literally thousands, of unique, individual interpretations of stress. If we cannot specifically define a word in a bill that is the fundamental basis of this legislation, and if we do not have specific parameters around the definition, how can the act be enforceable?

MLA Clifford Serwa, Member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly for Okanagan West Okanagan South (1986-1991). Legislative debate on Bill 4, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act.

Again going back to section 2, subsection (c)(2)(b) talks about the subjective terms "injured, sick, in pain or suffering." Here is the problem. If we don't have a standard for this, how can anybody enforce a law?
we expect people who are authorized agents of the SPCA -- volunteers, possibly -- to go out, administer the law and say: "That's pain." You haven't given them any standard to go by. That's my fear about this bill.

MLA R. Chisholm, Member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly from 1991 to 1996. Debate on Bill 4, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act.

Related article BC SPCA Animal Seizures information and support