Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2021 SKPC 52

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2021 SKPC 52 Date: October 28, 2021 Information: 90165805 Location: Rosetown _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Dolores LaPlante Appearing: Tamara Denluck For the Crown Dolores LaPlante For the Accused JUDGMENT S. METIVIER, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDGE INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On January 9, 2019, Animal Protection Officers (APOs) executed a search warrant of a 400 square foot house in Elrose, Saskatchewan, that resulted in the seizure of 106 cats, two dogs and one turtle.

Approximately 20 more cats were left behind because they were too fractious for the officers to catch. The animals were under the care of Dolores LaPlante who is charged with the offence of causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress under section 4(2) of The Animal Protection Act , 2018 , SS 2018, c A- 21.2 [ Act ].

[2] Before Ms. LaPlante can be found guilty of causing animal distress, the Court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubtthat she is a “person responsible for an animal” and that she “caused or permitted an animal to be, or continue to be in distress”. As Ms.LaPlante admitted that the animals were under her sole care, the primary issue in this case is whether the animals were in “distress”, asdefined in

section 2 of the Act:

(2) An animal is in distress if it is: (

a) deprived of: (

i) food or water sufficient to maintain the animal in a state of good health; (ii) care or shelter; or (iii) veterinary care or medical attention; (

b) in need of reasonable protection from injurious heat or cold; (

c) wounded, ill, in pain, suffering, abused or neglected; (

d) kept in conditions that: (

i) are unsanitary; (ii) will significantly impair the animal’s health or well-being over time; (iii) cause the animal extreme anxiety or suffering; or (iv) contravene the prescribed standards, codes of practice or guidelines; …

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, an animal is not considered to be in distress if it is handled: (

a) in the case of a class of animals for which there is a standard, code of practice or guideline that is prescribed as acceptable, in amanner consistent with the standard, code of practice or guideline that is prescribed as acceptable; (

b) in accordance with generally accepted practices of animal management; or (

c) in a manner that is otherwise reasonable in the circumstances. [3] Ms. LaPlante was originally charged with animal cruelty and neglect under the Criminal Code but those charges were stayedduring the trial. The remaining charge is a non-criminal regulatory offence of causing animal distress. As this is a strict liability offence,there is no necessity for the prosecution to prove the existence of mens rea (mental intent).

The Crown is required to prove beyond areasonable doubt that the accused committed the actus reus (prohibited act), leaving it open to the accused to avoid liability by provingon a balance of probabilities that they took all reasonable care: R v Sault Ste. Marie (City), (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 1299.The availability of the defence of “reasonable care” is codified in section 2(3) of the Act. [4] The Crown alleged that Ms.

LaPlante caused or permitted the animals to be in distress by keeping them in unsuitableconditions and/or by depriving them of food and water sufficient to maintain them in a state of good health. [5] Ms. LaPlante denied that the animals were in distress and said that even though her house was dirty and there were a lot ofcats, the animals were happy, well cared for and had an opportunity to be adopted out for a better life. She called it “atrocious” that theAPOs seized the cats from her house and kept them in a manner that exposed them to the spread of disease that resulted in 105 cats beingeuthanized.

ISSUES [6] The issues that the Court must determine in this case are: 1. Were the animals kept in conditions that constitute “distress” under the Act? 2. Were the animals in “distress” as a result of being deprived of food or water sufficient to maintain them in a state of good health? 3. If the answer to either of the above issues is “yes”, did Ms. LaPlante handle the animals in a manner that was reasonable in thecircumstances?

ANALYSIS Were the animals kept in conditions that constitute “distress” under the Act ? [ 7 ] Ms. LaPlante is clearly passionate about caring for animals, particularly cats. She graduated from the animal technology program at Kelsey Institute in Saskatoon in 1998 and worked at a local veterinary clinic and pig farms up until 2008 when she went on medical disability. [ 8 ] On October 26, 1996, Ms. LaPlante started a cat rescue called Alley Cats.

While the number of cats in foster care with Alley Cats typically drifted between 60 to 80, the number increased significantly in 2017 to 2018 to approximately 150 cats and kittens. Ms. LaPlante described herself as an “enthusiastic foster parent” and testified that she would generally foster 70% of all the cats rescued by Alley Cats in her house. Ms.

LaPlante did not dispute that she lived in a 400 square foot house where she kept and cared for over 100 cats, two dogs and a turtle. [ 9 ] The Crown called several witnesses who provided consistent evidence of overcrowding, excessive filth and clutter, lack of sanitation, and poor air quality that resulted in a strong odour of ammonia. [ 10 ] James Koss went to Ms. LaPlante’s house on or around September 18, 2018 to fix a toilet and install a new gas stove. He said that there were cats everywhere and described a state of extreme clutter and filth in the house.

There were litter boxes in the kitchen cupboards, human feces on the walls and floor of the bathroom. He said that the odour of ammonia was “overwhelming” and made him “physically sick”. [ 11 ] Similarly, APOs Stacey Grake, Dennis Muirhead and Ashley Detillieux described a cluttered and filthy environment with poor air quality that left them with lingering respiratory and skin symptoms.

APO Grake took measurements of the ammonia levels in the house and obtained readings around 25 ppm, which she explained “is a high number that makes it difficult to breath and can cause issues with watering eyes and chest tightness if exposed to it for more than eight hours”. Dr.

Woodsworth, who was qualified on a voir dire to give expert testimony in the assessment, examination and treatment and the adequacy of food, water and shelter of domestic animals, explained that ammonia levels in an environment are associated with the amount of feces and urine and that, over time, ammonia levels over 5 ppm will cause harm to the respiratory systems, eyes and skin of animals. [ 12 ] Dr. Woodsworth was asked to participate in the execution of the search warrant at Ms. LaPlante’s house on January 9 to assess the animals and the environmental conditions in order to determine if they were in distress.

She testified that there were cats everywhere, the house was full of clutter and there was cat feces on the floor and various other places. She heard sneezing and coughing and could tell that the cats were in various states of health. The water sources she saw were uniformly dirty and contaminated. At that point, her main concerns were the environment (filth and high ammonia levels) and access to fresh food and water, indicating that for 100 cats, there would need to be approximately 30 litres of water available per day.

She was also concerned about the overcrowding of cats, which she noted could cause high levels of anxiety and stress for the cats because of the inability to escape conflict. [ 13 ] Dr. Woodsworth also talked about A Code of Practice for Canadian Cattery Operations, 2009 ( Cattery Code ) developed by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. While adherence to the Cattery Code is voluntary, it contains general expectations and best practices for the housing and husbandry of cats, particularly where multiple cats are being housed. In regard to the environmental

conditions that existed in Ms. LaPlante’s house, Dr. Woodsworth identified several areas of concern including the air quality, overcrowding, inadequate fresh food and water and poor sanitation and testified that the space in the house was not sufficient for the number of cats. [ 14 ] The evidence given by of the Crown witnesses concerning the environmental conditions is supported by numerous photographs of the house that were marked as exhibits at trial. Ms.

LaPlante suggested that some of the clutter and chaos in her house was temporary, caused by changing kennels in the basement, a plumbing incident that occurred in her bathroom the night before the search, and by the APOs moving things around during the search. However, it is apparent from the photographs and the level of filth described by the witnesses that the condition of the house did not happen suddenly but had accumulated over time. [ 15 ] Ms.

LaPlante did not dispute that her house was cluttered and dirty and said that because her focus is on rescuing cats, she chooses to live in an environment that other people might find shocking. She focused on providing food and medical care to the cats over cleaning and sanitation, and took steps to ensure that cats were isolated to prevent the spread of disease.

However, the Act requires more of a person that owns an animal or has custody and control of an animal than providing food and medical care; animals must also be kept in a reasonably sanitary environment. [ 16 ] While there may be borderline cases of what constitutes unsanitary conditions for animals, this is not one of them. The size of Ms. LaPlante’s house was grossly insufficient to support the number of cats and resulted in markedly unsanitary conditions and poor air quality. I accept Dr.

Woodsworth’s evidence and opinion that the environmental conditions in the house contravened existing standards of animal husbandry and that over time the ammonia levels in the house would affect the animals’ health. The Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the animals were in distress. Were the animals in “distress” as a result of being deprived of food or water sufficient to maintain them in a state of good health? [ 17 ] The evidence at trial did not support the allegation that the animals under Ms. LaPlante’s care were deprived of food. Ms.

LaPlante provided detailed testimony of the food products she provided for the animals and how they are obtained. Several of the Crown’s witnesses also observed food sources in the house. [ 18 ] Considering how the evidence at trial unfolded, the Crown focused its attention in final argument on the sufficiency and quality of water sources in the house. While witnesses observed water sources in the house, they consistently testified that they were murky, dirty and contaminated.

Although I accept the evidence of witnesses that the water was contaminated at the time of the search, I am left with a reasonable doubt that overall, the animals were not provided with sufficient water to maintain them in a state of good health. The Court heard a lot of detailed testimony concerning the health of the animals. Although a few of the cats were dehydrated, the cause of the dehydration was more likely due to disease or illness rather than neglect. Furthermore, the evidence of witnesses that the water sources were dirty and contaminated must be considered along with Ms.

LaPlante’s testimony that the search occurred early in the morning before she had a chance to attend to feeding and watering the animals. The totality of the evidence in this case leaves me with a reasonable doubt that the animals were deprived of food or water sufficient to maintain them in a state of good health. If the answer to either of the above issues is “yes”, did Ms. LaPlante handle the animals in a manner that was reasonable in the circumstances? [ 19 ] Ms. LaPlante testified that Alley Cats would take in wild cats, sick cats and other cats that most animal rescues refused to deal with.

She explained that multiple big rescues in 2017 and 2018 led to Alley Cats having a larger number of cats than usual. In addition to the usual adoptions and euthanization of animals that might occur after regular health visits by veterinarians, Alley Cats was planning a long-term project to fundraise and build a cat sanctuary to provide long-term care for displaced cats in Saskatchewan.

She produced photographs of a much cleaner house taken after the seizure and suggested that the APOs should have ordered that she take corrective action to clean the house rather than seizing the cats. [ 20 ] Having a big heart is not a defence under the Act . Ms. LaPlante had a responsibility not to take in more cats than she could provide reasonable housing and care for. The overcrowding of cats that resulted in extreme filth and poor air quality was a situation of her own making. Ms. LaPlante was able to clean her house after the seizure because the cats were taken out of it. According to Dr.

Woodsworth, the maximum number of cats that could reasonably be accommodated in the house is between 20 and 25. As this is not a borderline case I do not have to settle upon a precise number: having over one hundred cats in a 400 square foot house is undoubtedly too many.

[ 21 ] I find Ms. LaPlante guilty of the offence of causing animal distress contrary to section 4(2) of the Act . _________________________ METIVIER, CJPC