La Plante et al. v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Sask.), (2011) 371 Sask.R. 123 (CA)

• Judge: Cameron, Richards and Smith, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: April 08, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2011), 371 Sask.R. 123 (CA);2011 SKCA 43

La Plante v. SPCA (2011), 371 Sask.R. 123 (CA);

    518 W.A.C. 123

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.048

Dolores La Plante and Saskatchewan Alley Cat Allies ("SACA") (appellants) v. Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("Saskatchewan SPCA") and Saskatoon Society for the Prevention Of Cruelty to Animals ("Saskatoon SPCA") (respondents)

(CACV2047; 2011 SKCA 43)

Indexed As: La Plante et al. v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Sask.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Cameron, Richards and Smith, JJ.A.

April 11, 2011.

Summary:

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) received complaints regarding animals in distress at La Plante's residence. La Plante operated a non-profit cat rescue program out of her home (Saskatchewan Alley Cat Allies (SACA)). An animal protection officer obtained a search warrant. Officers attended at the residence with a veterinarian who determined that the animals were in distress, contrary to s. 4 of the Animal Protection Act. The officers seized 44 cats, one dog, seven turtles and an iguana. La Plante and SACA issued a statement of claim against the SPCA, alleging that the animals were seized contrary to the Animal Protection Act and in violation of the Charter. La Plante and the SACA brought a motion seeking the immediate return of the animals.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench (chambers judge), in a decision reported (2011), 369 Sask.R. 139, dismissed the application. La Plante appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court set aside the decision of the chambers judge, holding that she should not have purported to finally resolve the question of whether the animals had been lawfully seized. That was a matter for trial. The appeal court, dealt with the motion as if it were for an interlocutory mandatory injunction. The court ordered that the dog and the iguana be returned to La Plante pending the outcome of the trial. Finally, certain animals owned by third parties and being temporarily cared for by La Plante at the time they were seized were to be returned to their owners.

Animals - Topic 3046

Cruelty to animals - Protected animals - Search for and seizure of animals in distress (incl. warrantless search) - The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), acting under a search warrant, seized animals (44 cats, one dog, seven turtles and an iguana) from La Plante's residence where she operated a cat rescue program - La Plante sued the SPCA citing violations of the Animal Protection Act and the Charter, claiming that the search warrant was deficient - She moved for the immediate return of the animals - A motions judge dismissed the motion, finding that there was no infringement of La Plante's civil rights - La Plante appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the chambers judge's decision, holding that she should not have purported to finally resolve the question of whether the animals had been lawfully seized - That was a matter for trial - However, dealing with the motion as if it were for an interlocutory mandatory injunction, the court ordered that the dog and the iguana be returned to La Plante pending the outcome of the trial - Also, certain animals owned by third parties and being temporarily cared for by La Plante at the time they were seized were to be returned to their owners.

Animals - Topic 3047

Cruelty to animals - Protected animals - Return, sale or disposal of seized animals - [See Animals - Topic 3046 ].

Cases Noticed:

Friesen v. Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2008), 316 Sask.R. 179; 2008 SKQB 150, refd to. [para. 13].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 16].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

Dwayne Z. Braun, for the appellants;

Jonathan S. Abrametz, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on April 8, 2011, before Cameron, Richards and Smith, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Richards, J.A., rendered judgment for the court orally on April 8, 2011, with written reasons released on April 11, 2011.