A woman whose four horses and pig were seized by the SPCA under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has lost a court application to reverse an injunction that had earlier been granted to her that required the SPCA to maintain her animals until her appeal against their seizure to the Farm Industry Review Board was dealt with.
The court heard Felicia Allen was also evicted from the property where she kept the animals. The SPCA offered to return them to her if she followed a re-feeding program and reimbursed the SPCA for costs it incurred for caring for the animals since they were seized. Allen didn鈥檛 accept the offer and sought to appeal the seizure before the FIRB. She then withdrew her appeal and commenced an action in B.C. Supreme Court and sought an injunction that would require the SPCA to continue to maintain the horses and pig pending its disposition.
The injunction was granted subject to her paying to the SPCA the cost of providing the animals with food and boarding. Allen then sought leave to appeal the injunction and to have the financial terms stayed, but Justice Mary Newbury, of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, dismissed Allen鈥檚 applications, finding she had shown 鈥渘o arguable case鈥� the judge had erred in his decision.
Newbury in her April 18 noted that a special constable of the SPCA Animal Cruelty Department in February seized the horses and pig 鈥渙n the basis that the animals were in distress鈥� and in January, Surrey Animal Control seized her dog.
鈥淢s. Allen asserts that although her horses were lean, they were properly fed and cared for,鈥� the judge added.
The SPCA granted Allen an extension of time in which she could accept the terms of the return agreement but two days later she ought a further extension, Newbury noted, 鈥渟tating that she had no place for the animals to be kept, since her landlord had removed all of her equipment and was evicting her from her previous premises.鈥� Allen advised the court her action against the landlord is to be tried in court in October.
The judge noted that as long as the injunction remains in effect, Allen is required to pay the SPCA $139 per day in six instalments starting on April 21, when $695 was payable. 鈥淭he last instalment is due on June 30, when $1,946 will be payable. The total amount payable up to June 30 will exceed $10,000. I understand the animals are being housed by third parties and the SPCA is paying the costs of boarding and food.鈥�
Newbury noted that if Allen fails to pay any required instalment when its due the injunction will be 鈥渄eemed to have lapsed,鈥� and if she pays only a portion of the required funds, the society can 鈥渄ispose of a number of animals pro-rated to the amount of money鈥� Allen paid, at the rate of $32 per day per horse. 鈥淢s. Allen will have no authority to direct that the Society dispose of any particular animal or in any particular order.鈥�
Allen submitted she doesn鈥檛 have the money to care for the animals at this time.
Counsel for the SPCA argued that the interests of justice don鈥檛 favour granting leave to appeal, submitting that Allen鈥檚 goal is 鈥溾�ransparently aimed at having the [SPCA] house and feed the animals at its cost for some undefined time period,鈥� that she has no place for the animals 鈥渉as no intention of funding the costs of feeding and boarding them鈥� and therefore it鈥檚 鈥渄ecidedly not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal in the circumstances.鈥�
Newbury said while she鈥檚 鈥渘ot prepared to ascribe a malicious intention to Ms. Allen,鈥� it wouldn鈥檛 be in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. 鈥淚n an ideal world, animals could be cared for without draining of the resources of organizations such as the SPCA, but such is not reality,鈥� Newbury concluded. 鈥淚n my view, Ms. Allen鈥檚 argument that her affection for the four horses and one pig should effectively oblige the SPCA to bear the costs of maintaining the animals is simply not tenable.鈥�
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on
