Pizzey v Edmonton Humane Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2017 ABQB 573

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Pizzey v Edmonton Humane Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2017 ABQB 573 Date: 20170926 Docket: 1703 15572 Registry: Edmonton Between: Tanya Pizzey Applicant - and - Edmonton Humane Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Respondent _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R.

Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Edmonton Humane Society seeks an order setting aside both an interim injunction granted by Feehan J. on August 3, 2017 and a replevin order granted by Master Smart on August 8, 2017.

Both orders relate to 15 rabbits seized by the Humane Society from Tanya Pizzey’s residence on June 12, 2017. [ 2 ] On June 12, 2017, Brianne Grey, a Peace Officer employed by the Society, accompanied by another peace officer employed by the Society, a representative of Alberta Health Services, an Edmonton Police Service officer, and the owner and landlord of the premises rented by Ms. Pizzey went to those premises in response to the landlord’s report regarding the animals kept there by Ms. Pizzey.

The police officer had gone to the residence about a week earlier and was concerned about the conditions in which the rabbits were being housed.

[ 3 ] Upon inspecting the premises, Ms. Grey determined that the 15 rabbits were in distress. In her affidavit filed on this application she describes the conditions she observed and exhibits photographs which amply support her conclusion. Ms. Grey seized the rabbits under the authority of the Animal Protection Act , RSA 2000, c A-41, s 4. Ms. Grey’s affidavit demonstrates and establishes reasonable and probably grounds for her belief that the rabbits were in distress. [ 4 ] Ms. Pizzey was anticipating moving to a different residence.

She was advised that if she wished to reclaim the rabbits she would have to have her new residence inspected to ensure that it was a safe and clean living environment, agree to abide by the APA, and pay the costs of the care of the rabbits while they were in the care of the Society. The APA s. 7(1)(

b) provides that the owner of an animal has three business days to satisfy the Society’s conditions for the return of the animals failing which the Society may sell the animal, or give it away, (10 days if the animal appears to the Society to be a purebred or has obvious identification markings). [ 5 ] On June 16, 2017, a social worker who assists Ms. Pizzey contacted the Society and the Society agreed to extend the “hold period” until June 19. On June 20, the “hold period” expired. [ 6 ] On July 31, 2017, a lawyer acting for Ms. Pizzey contacted the Society and demanded return of the rabbits.

The Society’s lawyer responded on August 2, 2017, explaining the circumstances in which the rabbits had been seized, the statutory authority for the Society’s actions, and the conditions Ms. Pizzey would have to satisfy in order to have the rabbits returned. [ 7 ] On August 3, 2017, counsel for Ms. Pizzey appeared in morning chambers without notice to the Society and obtained an interim injunction preserving the status quo pending a replevin application on notice to the Society. On August 8, 2017, counsel for Ms. Pizzey appeared in Master’s Chambers seeking a replevin order.

For reasons not apparent to me, again he appeared without notice to the Society, though the August 3 interim injunction expressly required that the anticipated replevin application be made on notice. [ 8 ] It does not appear that there were any practical consequences to the replevin order having been granted ex parte because it has never been executed. The lawyer who made the applications withdrew as counsel for Ms. Pizzey in late August 2017. [ 9 ] None of the rabbits has been destroyed. I understand that six of them have been adopted and nine are in “foster care”. [ 10 ] On this application, Ms.

Pizzey appeared in person and explained that the rabbits are important to her emotional well-being. In her affidavit, she deposes that she has been diagnosed with a “borderline emotional disability” and that her counselors have “designated the Animals as therapy bunnies needed every day to manage [her] symptoms.” [ 11 ] She opposed the setting aside of the injunction or replevin order. [ 12 ] While I sympathise with Ms.

Pizzey in this difficult situation, I am satisfied that the Society has acted entirely in accordance with the APA and that they were entirely justified in doing so. [ 13 ] There is no foundation for the continuation of either the interim injunction or the replevin order and I set both aside. Heard on the 22 nd day of September, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 26 th day of September, 2017. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ms. Pizzey appeared without counsel Denis Lefebvre for the Respondent