The Digby Courier has reported that the Benoit's have lost their appeal of their 2007 case when they had puppies seized by the SPCA for being full of worms, and Gail Benoit assualted an SPCA Officer - for which she served 21 days in jail - the only time she's ever served time in jail for anything she's ever been found guilty of over the years.
Some of the interesting things the article says are -
Benoit and Bailey appealed under the right to earn a living and the right not to be subject to unreasonable searches, as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fichaud found both of those points groundless.
So it's okay to abuse animals as long as its part of doing your job I guess according to the Benoits. Gross.
Bailey and Benoit contested the fact that the puppies were in distress but Justice Fichaud made it clear that appeals can only be granted on points of law, not of fact.
“Further the evidence fully supports the facts set out earlier that the puppies were infested with parasites, with distress attendant on that condition.”
Bailey and Benoit’s counsel, Michael Power, pointed to veterinary testimony that all dogs have worms and suggested worms shouldn’t count in any consideration of distress. Fichaud looked at further veterinary testimony that “made it clear the mature parasitic load and consequent distress in these puppies far exceeded the common situation of embryonic roundworm, before a kennel begins immediate deworming.”
The Benoits didn't think the puppies were in distress - even though the evidence fully supported that they were fully infested with parasites. I wonder if all puppies sold by the Benoits are as closely monitored as those puppies were back in 2007 - or if they've learned their lessons since then on how to tell when a puppy has worms. I hope they have.
Judging by their appeal though, it might seem as though they haven't - so if you're buying a puppy from the Benoit's you might want to look at the tummies of the commodity you're buying from them (it's not puppies they sell, it's a commodity they sell after all) - because you may have to deal with things like worms - because obviously it's not something they worry about.
I'm just saying.
I'm glad to see that the justice system worked this time around.
Below is the article from the Digby Courier in case you can't read the jpg above.
Puppy sellers lose appeal
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey.
The Roxville couple had appealed their 2009 convictions for animal cruelty and for assaulting a peace officer.
Justice Joel Fichaud heard the appeal in Halifax on Oct. 4, 2011 and handed down the dismissal one week later.
The couple were appealing their convictions handed down on January 29, 2009 in relation to events that happened in the fall of 2007.
The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded on Oct. 24, 2007 to a complaint about sick puppies at the couple’s residence. Because Bailey had not let the SPCA in during an earlier investigation, the SPCA officers came to the house with warrants for two puppies and accompanied by the RCMP.
During the investigation Benoit threw one of the puppies at the SPCA officer, cursed at her, stepped on her foot, and bumped her shoulder.
The officers had noticed another eight puppies in distress in the residence, obtained a further search warrant and returned on Oct. 26 for those sick animals. Examination by a veterinarian revealed the puppies were full of worms, extremely thin with distended bellies because the worms were getting all the nutrition. Other parasites were causing them severe diarrhea and cramping.
Judge Jean-Louis Batiot found the couple guilty in 2009 and issued them each a fine of $1,500 plus restitution. Benoit was sentenced to and has already served 21 days in jail for obstructing and assaulting a peace officer.
Justice Fichaud considered several points in his decision to dismiss the appeal.
Bailey and Benoit contested the fact that the puppies were in distress but Justice Fichaud made it clear that appeals can only be granted on points of law, not of fact.
“Further the evidence fully supports the facts set out earlier that the puppies were infested with parasites, with distress attendant on that condition.”
Bailey and Benoit’s counsel, Michael Power, pointed to veterinary testimony that all dogs have worms and suggested worms shouldn’t count in any consideration of distress. Fichaud looked at further veterinary testimony that “made it clear the mature parasitic load and consequent distress in these puppies far exceeded the common situation of embryonic roundworm, before a kennel begins immediate deworming.”
Bailey and Benoit also appealed on the grounds the puppies didn’t belong to them.
“The real question under the law,” reads the original Supreme Court decision. “is whether the appellants had de facto custody, possession and control of the puppies at the relevant time and place. The evidence is overwhelming that they did.” Justice Fichaud agreed with that decision.
Bailey and Benoit also appealed on the grounds that if the owner takes steps to relieve the distress there is no crime - Justice Fichaud found that Benoit and Bailey did not take such steps. They appealed on the grounds that the SPCA officers didn’t first give them notice or attempt to enlist their cooperation, which they say is called for under the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act. Justice Fichaud found that condition does no appear in the legislation.
Benoit and Bailey also appealed under the right to earn a living and the right not to be subject to unreasonable searches, as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fichaud found both of those points groundless.
No comments:
Post a Comment