Category Archives: Justice

The People v. The System

Tired of hearing the same broken record over and over again by the “system” when dealing with animal abuse and neglect? The same tune keeps on playing, time after time, the “system” claims it has weak laws, no funds, and bigger problems to deal with. Do we really lack laws? Is the P-42 even constitutionally legal? What’s the deal with Anima-Quebec and it’s partnered SPCAs?

I think the problem is none of the above, the problem I see is simply incompetent people in charge. Anima-Quebec is a joke, MAPAQ the author of said joke. Only Anima-Quebec and MAPAQ can enforce the P-42 law (The Animal Health Protection Act of Quebec), the police can’t touch it. MAPAQ and Anima-Quebec make deals in order to avoid pressing charges, because the Crown Prosecutors are usually unwilling to accept said charges due to a lack of proof showing “intent” on the part of the defendant, as well as due to a job poorly done by the “system” in creating the so-called information file, the file used to prosecute the case in front of a Judge.

If one branch of the system is incompetent, we look at another branch such as the police to enforce the Criminal Code. Articles 445 and 446 specifically. The criminal code is a Federal law, applicable to all Provinces.

Causing unnecessary suffering

445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who

  • (a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
  • (b) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds;
  • (c) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
  • (d) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
  • (e) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (d).

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.

Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence

(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully, as the case may be.

Presence at baiting as evidence

(4) For the purpose of proceedings under paragraph (1)(b), evidence that an accused was present at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he or she encouraged, aided or assisted at the fighting or baiting.

  • 2008, c. 12, s. 1.

Causing damage or injury

446. (1) Every one commits an offence who

  • (a) by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed; or
  • (b) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both.

Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence

(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the damage or injury was caused by wilful neglect.

  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 446; 2008, c. 12, s. 1.

So the Police can replace SPCAs, Anima-Quebec and MAPAQ to investigate and lay charges, they at least know how to build these so-called information files! The problem in laying charges, is it won’t allow the police to seize unless they can see immediate danger to the animal. They can’t “search” without a warrant, a failure to provide reasonable care won’t validate a seize as per the criminal code. Animals are property and expropriation laws apply. If the police can’t legally seize, why can MAPAQ, Anima-Quebec and SPCAs? Why replace the police with administrative authorities? In order to violate Human Rights using  the P-42 as law!

Getting the police to act is not easy, most officers claim they have humans to protect, animals are not on their list. It’s the SPCA’s job they claim. Wrong they are! Enforcing the Criminal Code is their job. If they refuse to act, or if an SPCA or City refuses to act, said “authorities” can be charged under the Criminal Code, article 180.

Common nuisance

180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby

  • (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or

  • (b) causes physical injury to any person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Definition

(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby

  • (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or

  • (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 176.

The question to ask; is an animal considered both the public & property? The City of Montreal claims it needs to protect the public, thus outlawing a dog to bite another dog. So the usual answer to this question is yes. Animals are “the public’s property”. Article 180 can swing a good punch in a multitude of scenarios. If anyone such as an SPCA refuses to act within a legal right and duty to do so, they can be charged if it refuse to do their job (fail to discharge a legal duty).  Criminal charges have been laid against the “system”, in our case the SPCALL and Anima-Quebec. I can see hundreds of scenarios where charges like this can be laid against the system, all from past experiences with these so-called “administrative authorities”. If only I knew then, what I know now.

I’ve declared war with Anima-Quebec, MAPAQ and all it’s affiliated SPCAs because of their inaction over the years. I’ll be gathering more proof, laying multiple charges over and over again. The first step is to prove in Criminal Court that they have committed a crime, thus leading to civil lawsuits against the system in order to invalidate and nullify the P-42, and in turn tearing down Anima-Quebec & MAPAQ. The plan is to replace the P-42 with real laws, laws within the “Public Security Act” since a dog is both property and the public as the City claims, something that the police could use.  With the “system” committing a crime, you can demonstrate bad faith in Civil Courts. The Superior Court of Quebec can trash the law if it’s proven that it was used in bad faith, or replace those in charge if bad faith can be proven.

Municipal police have a duty to enforce municipal By-laws! The Municipality is their employer, which means the police can seize in hoarding situations by using municipal By-laws. However they cannot seize without a warrant, so why is it they don’t want to act and go get one? Now that we know, we can charge the cops of a crime too, that is if they refuse to do their job. Knowledge is power they say…

So next time the “system” says “nothing we can do about this”, tell them them that Articles 445, 446, and 180 of the Criminal Code show the contrary. If you have to, lay charges at the police station against the City, Municipality, SPCA, pounds, etc… If a police officer refuses to act, get proof and file a report at la deontologie policiere.

Since Quebec allows private prosecutions versus Crown prosecutions (a public prosecutor, hired by the Province or city) in criminal & penal cases, why do the SPCAs keep passing off the charges to the Crown? Would it not be better to do a private prosecution, like the Royal SPCA does? After all, it was the first SPCA and it’s very well aware of the lack of resources available to public prosecutors, be it a city prosecutor or Crown prosecutor. The old saying still holds true; if you want the job done well, do it yourself.

Pet versus landlord

image Are the landlords still the Lords of their land? Can the Lord of the land tell us, ordinary people, what we can and cannot do, or have? What about tenants, don’t they have any rights?

One’s domicile is one’s castle. No one can violate one’s right to a private life, not even the so called Lord of the land. Every person in Quebec has a right to enjoy his or her property (e.g. one’s domicile and pets since both are property).

Landlords and the “Régie du Logement” are guilty of Human Rights’ violations if they enforce the “no pet” clause without proof of a “legal” nuisance or serious prejudice, as per the Quebec Charter of Human Rights, (C-12) for the simple reason “they don’t want pets in their buildings”.

Ontario makes such a clause in a lease invalid and void. In Canada the Criminal Code considers pets as property, as does Quebec’s Civil Code. No law can go against the Charter of Rights; article 6 entitles everyone to the enjoyment of their property.

The Régie du Logement is not a Court, but simply a Provincial administrative tribunal and the “Régisseur” is not a Justice of the Peace but an Administrative Justice. This is why they often ignore the Charter and rule in favor of the wealthier Lords of the land. They have very little legal competence, which is why the Superior Court of Quebec has a Judicial Review power over all tribunals and lower courts as they are a Court of Higher Competence. Perhaps they do not trust the competence of the lower branches of justice.

So what should one do if the landlord wants the removal of pets off their property? I suggest you tell them “speak to the hand”… and if the landlord pursues it and it goes in front of the Régie du Logement, argue the Quebec Charter and Civil Code. The landlord must prove that the pet causes a legal nuisance or causes him serious prejudice, therefore depriving him of his Rights, in order for the Régie to validate that another’s Humans Rights (the tenant’s) are allowed to be violated in order to protect his own legal right (the landlord).

If the Régie du Logement rules that the tenant must get rid of his/her pet, the tenant can then file a motion in Superior Court to obtain a Stay of Execution, while applying for a Judicial Review, against both the Landlord and the Régisseur.

If one chooses not to get rid of his/her pet, the Régie cannot terminate a lease on the basis that the tenant did not comply with the order to get rid of the pet. That would be “contempt of (bogus) court“, punishable by fines only. The landlord would then need to get a Writ of Seizure from the Courts of Quebec in order to enforce such order, thus “seizing” the pet. This cannot usually be obtained, unless the landlord can prove a nuisance or prejudice caused by the pet.

A landlord may refuse to rent to someone with pets, but cannot legally enforce it once the tenant has moved in, without that “Writ of Seizure” mentioned above.

If landlords want the right to refuse pets, they should pay higher City taxes than those who allow pets, in order to fund the City pounds/shelters who have to deal with the problems of pet abandonment created by landlords.

When landlords are faced with damages caused by the pets, they can take legal action against the tenants through Civil Courts in order to be financially compensated to repair damages.