There was a really interesting case in Ontario recently. An amazing blog in Toronto "One Bark at a time" has been talking about - the case of Lorie Gordon, who was sued by a "large scale commercial breeder" called "Paws r us" - Lorie had called the facility a puppy mill, and for that she got sued - and she lost in court because the judge used the definition of a puppy mill written by the "National Companion Animal Coalition" - which is a coalition formed in 1996 comprised of representatives from PIJAC, the CKC, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and the Candian Federation of Humane Societies. The group is a complete sham and only exists to give pet stores a clean facade - I've written about the group in several places on this blog - and you can find the posts in my category that I call "PIJAC". You can read about this story in Fred's posts at "Dog Court"
It was because of this ridiculous definition that the case of a "puppy mill" couldn't be found - so their claim of defamation was found to be true. A complete set-up. Thank-dog she's appealing. Only in Canada could this happen.
In another recent post Fred talks about the concept of "SLAPPs or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" - which some would say are affecting the animal advocate community. These lawsuits are meant to shut up the person being sued because even though they are speaking the truth - they can't say anything, because the thing they had previously been talking about is now before the courts - so to say anything in public jeopardizes their chances of winning in court. Fred talks about it much better than me.
A little of that has been happening locally recently, and not many people know about it.
A person who has had their dog impounded for the last year had slapped another person in the local dog community with a lawsuit - suing them for I'm not sure what - I never saw the court papers, but I heard that it was for things like "uttering threats" and things of that nature - pretty serious stuff.
The person was facing some pretty serious charges - and granted - this person did go way overboard in the things she's done and said, I personally couldn't understand why she was mounting such a fierce personal campaign - but to me what the other side was doing was complete bullying - and today it appears that definitely seemed to be the case - because the person who had the charges laid didn't even show up in court and the charges were dismissed - as with almost everything that the human and their crew has mounted in t he last year - it was all fluff and bluster. All hollering and no follow through.
All they did was cause horror and mayhem from the time the charges were drawn up until the court date and on the date of the court - they didn't show up. So it was pure bullying. That is such bad taste. Why be so litigious - and always be threatening to sue everyone if you don't show up in court? There's a lot of heads shaking this evening, that's for sure.
There are so many things going on that are nothing about the dog, that's for sure. One has to wonder what legal bills are being paid for with the benefit this week - is it the legal bills for this fictional "uttering threats" and all the other people who've been threatened with litigation? Or with the original case. Who knows.
And will this blog owner now be sued? Who knows what you can say online now. I guess we'll find out.