Animal owner fined for inadequate shelter and care

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

For failing to provide adequate shelter and care to her pets, Linda Smith, 50, of of 6 Gambling Road, Carlingford was sentenced to pay a fine of $240 by September 5 or serve eight days in provincial jail in default of payment after she was found guilty of the charge by Grand Falls provincial court Judge Jacques Desjardins.

Smith, who defended herself during her trial held on June 6, was charged by the SPCA after its officers seized two adult cats, three dogs and three puppies at her Carlingford home on Jan. 10.

Much of the evidence gathered by SPCA officials at the scene was deemed inadmissible by the judge following a voir dire hearing, due to the fact that they were granted access inside the home by the accused's daughter and not by an entry warrant granted by a judge. The fact that the SPCA had acted without an entry warrant was raised by Smith at the start of the trial.

However, the court did accept the testimony of Smith's daughter and a neighbour who took care of the animals in her absence as to the physical condition of the home and the animals they saw whiile at the residence.

Grand Falls veterinarian Monique Massé testified to examining two cats on Jan. 11, which she found to have a severe mite infestation in the ears. "One had a hemotoma, which is a swelling of the outer ear and full of blood. It had been left untreated. Mites cause severe irritation and inflammation and it can be severe if left untreated," Massé said.

"They were treated for mites and fleas and tapeworm, a parasite which lives in the intestines. It can cause an animal to lose weight. In both cases, they did not appear to have lost weight. They weren't dirty and seemed to be pretty clean," she added.

Veterinarian Julie Couillard testified that she examined three adult dogs and three puppies on Jan. 10. As with the cats, they suffered from ear mites. All the dogs appeared to have normal weights.

Floor covered in feces and urine

Smith's daughter, Natasha Shaw of Hartland told the court of her visit to her mother's home on Dec. 10, 2007.

"No one was there. The whole floor was covered in feces and animal urine," Shaw said, adding that she had spoken with her mother between Dec. 10 and 25 who told her that she was at her boyfriend's in Fort Fairfield, Maine. "I told her about the mess at her residence. It was gross and disgusting. She said she would be coming back to Canada at some point. I haven't talked to her since Dec. 25," Shaw stated.

"On Dec. 10, I called the SPCA because of the way I found the house. The dogs were very anxious to get out; they were scratching at the door and jumping up at the window. I walked in. The door was unlocked. There was never an issue of us going in," she added.

Shaw went back to her mother's home on Jan. 9 and found the same disarray.

"I saw piles of dog feces and puddles of urine. In the stairwell, I found three newborn puppies. When you walked into the house, the smell hit you. There were feces everywhere. There was a pile of food in a corner and water."

Shaw stated she took the puppies home and called a veterinarian in Bristol who advised her that the pups needed to be with their mother, due to their age.

"I drove back at 11 p.m. that same day and returned the puppies to the mother. She fed them immediately."

"On January 10, I called the SPCA. I was asked to meet the SPCA officials at the house, which I did. I opened the patio door and let them in. I don't own the house but I used to live there. There's never been an issue with her children going there. I helped them collect the animals. The SPCA official wrote a notice of what had happened and struck it to the door before we left," Shaw said.

"It looked like no one had been at the residence for a while," she added.

Not responsible for cleaning up

The Crown's next witness was Kathy Ruest of Carlingford who took care of Smith's animals when she was away.

"She called me in November to ask me to feed and water her animals. She was living at her boyfriend's in Fort Fairfield. I had permission to go into the house," Ruest stated. "She called me in December as well. I was not responsible for cleaning up. Linda told me that she would take care of that. I would go every day to feed and water the animals. In January, she tried to come over and was refused at the border. She asked me to keep watering and feeding them. On Jan. 9, I called her about the three puppies which were missing. I thought she had gotten them. I had first noticed the puppies on Dec. 25. She said she did not have them and that she had not been in the house. There were feces everywhere," added Ruest who also told the court that she took pictures of the home on Jan. 9. The pictures were entered as evidence by the Crown.

"There was a strong odour of ammonia. The condition of the house bothered me. When I spoke to Linda about it, her reaction was that she told me she would be over as soon as she could to clean."

"When I called on Jan. 9 about the missing puppies, her boyfriend told me that the mother had probably moved them elsewhere in the house. At Linda's request, I took pictures because she wanted to know how bad the house was and I e-mailed the pictures to her," Ruest said.

The animals which were seized by the SPCA on Jan. 10 have since been adopted.

No immediate danger

Pertaining to the testimony of the SPCA official and the pictures he took at the scene, Judge Desjardins ruled against the evidence, saying that their entry into the home was unlawful and contrary to the law.

"Although the official acted in good faith, he did not take the steps to comply with the law. There was still some water and food and the house was heated. There was no immediate danger to the animals and he would have had time to get an entry warrant from a judge. The entry was unlawful and any evidence which flows from that should not be admissible," he said. "However, the other evidence provided by Ruest and Shaw is not disputed but rather the warrantless entry."

The Crown chose to admit the testimony and evidence provided by Ruest and Shaw up to Jan. 9.

A set-up

"No one has been able to prove that I was not living in that home. At 50, I don't feel I need to answer to my children," stated Linda Smith in her own defense.

"I was taking care of a man for which I cared for. I make sure my animals are cared for in winter. My dogs have been to dog shows. My comings and goings are my business," she added. "My animals were put in stress before the SPCA took them. No dog can do what is in those pictures. My furniture is not infested in fleas. My couch... my dogs sleep on it. They're saying my home is not fit. I've lived there since 1982. I use an ionizer. I did not endanger them. I had a babysitter. I told the SPCA my animals would get sick if taken out of my home and they did. They're lucky they aren't dead."

"My home is fit for me and for them. I have been sleeping on the couch and I have no flea infestation. It's a $1,800 couch. I have slept on it for the past six months and I have not been flea-bitten," Smith said. "I never endangered my animals. The feces on the walls? There is no way that my dogs could have done that. It was thrown while it was fresh. It was a set-up. My daughter broke in. My animals did not commit this sin. The Crown has not proven to me this was not a set-up."

"There is no question about it. The evidence and pictures prove it was unsanitary for the animals," stated Judge Desjardins. "There was inadequate ventilation also. Animals need protection and shouldn't have to live in those conditions. Interestingly enough, was there food for the cats? There is no mention of this in the testimony provided during the trial. There is a difference between cat and dog food. There were two cats in the home. In regards to the two adult cats, there is no evidence that care was provided for the cats. On this I find the defendant guilty," he added.