A McNutt-area farmer has been found guilty of causing an animal to be in distress under the province’s Animal Protection Act (APA).
In an oral decision April 10, Justice Darin Chow said he accepted the evidence of three SPCA workers and two veterinarians that many of the 33 dogs seized from Murray Andres’ farm in May 2011 showed signs of distress due to lack of adequate shelter, food and/or clean water.
The SPCA officials testified that the dogs often only had rotting carcasses to eat and puddle water to drink and many were tied to heavy objects with nowhere to take shelter from the elements. They wrote him up on at least four separate occasions.
Although Chow said Andres had made some minimal attempts to improve conditions for the dogs following four notices from the SPCA, he had not taken reasonable steps to prevent their distress.
He noted that, according to the vets, at least half the dogs seized had skin conditions due to being tethered in mud and their own feces. Others had lesions and injuries the judge said would have or should have been obvious to Andres. At least 22 of the animals were undernourished and two puppies were seriously dehydrated.
Andres was charged with causing animals to be in distress under the Saskatchewan Animal Protection Act (APA) and failing to provide suitable and adequate food, water and shelter under the Criminal Code of Canada. He also faced one count of obstructing a peace officer for not complying with an SPCA order.
Andres had originally tried to fight the charges by claiming his Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated and launching a challenge of the constitutionality of the APA and animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code as being vague.
Chow had previously dismissed that application on April 12, 2013 saying the defence had “failed to draw attention to any evidence” the search warrant deficient or misleading in some way, a standard set by the Supreme Court.
He also ruled that the provincial Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the general validity of the APA or Criminal Code.
On Friday, Chow found Andres guilty of the APA charge, which is a liability only charge, but dismissed the Criminal Code charge which requires the Crown to also prove intent. The judge also acquitted Andres on the obstruction charge after the SPCA official admitted the order did not contain the violation Andres was accused of.
The decision is almost identical to another conviction Andres received while this case was before the Court.
In February 2012, the SPCA seized 12 adult dogs and six puppies from Andres. In that case he also tried the constitutional defence, but Judge Ross Green wasn’t buying it saying, “His efforts, taken together, were nowhere near what would be required to constitute reasonable care in preventing distress.”
Green also threw out the Criminal Code charge, but fined Andres a total of $4,000 including the victim surcharge. That case is currently under appeal.
On April 10, Chow also ruled on Andres’ application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on the Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The judge attributed about a year-and-a-half worth of the delays directly to the defence and Andres himself. Much of the rest of the delay he termed “inherent” meaning that it was simply part of the process of justice and included the fact that Chow was elevated from the provincial court to the Court of Queen’s Bench during the case.
