Court Declares OSPCA Enforcement Powers Unconstitutional by J. Paul Stevens
- 2019-02-01
- By admin
- Posted in Latest News
The Ontario Superior Court released an important decision on January 2, 2019 concerning the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA). Justice Timothy Minnema declared that some sections of the OSPCA Act violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The OSPCA has been given the responsibility to enforce animal welfare legislation in Ontario; however, there is concern that it oversteps its intended role. Over the past couple of decades there have been many reports in the media of excessive measures taken by the OSPCA against farmers and hobbyists keeping animals. Although the OSPCA is a private organization, the Act gives it search and seizure powers that go beyond even the powers of the police, but without accountability and transparency. A constitutional challenge was launched by Jeffrey Bogaerts in 2013 in response to citizens’ concerns about OSPCA actions taken against them. The challenge was launched in cooperation with the Ontario Landowners Association (OLA) who also provided funding. The OLA was deluged with complaints of aggressive and abusive behaviour by OSPCA officers and inappropriate seizures of birds and other livestock.
Kurtis Andrews is an Ottawa lawyer with considerable experience in animal welfare issues. Mr. Andrews represented Mr. Bogaerts and the OLA on the constitutional challenge in the courts. There were three main questions the Court was asked to consider.
- Does the OSPCA Act breach section 7 or section 8 of the Charter by granting police and other investigative powers such as search and seizure to a private organization? Does it breach the Charter by granting those powers to the OSPCA without adequate legislatively mandated restraints, oversight, accountability and/or transparency?
- Does the OSPCA breach the Charter by authorizing unreasonable (including warrantless) searches of people’s homes and farms and seizures of their animals without any or adequate judicial authorization or oversight?
- Does the OSPCA Act fall outside the province’s jurisdiction by being criminal in nature and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada?
In answer to the first question, Justice Minnema agreed that it is unconstitutional under section 7 of the Charter for the province by way of the OSPCA Act to grant police and other investigative powers to a private organization and to the OSPCA in particular. The judge noted that every OSPCA inspector has the powers of a police officer, not just with respect to the OSPCA Act that includes incarceration, but also with respect to the Criminal Code provisions pertaining to the welfare of or prevention of cruelty to animals. Justice Minnema proposed a principle of fundamental justice that law enforcement bodies must be subject to reasonable standards of transparency and accountability. In his ruling the judge also expressed concern about declaring the OSPCA Act invalid immediately since it could deprive animals of the protections they currently receive. He therefore suspended the declaration of invalidity for one year to provide the provincial government sufficient time to consider different options available to make the legislation compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Although to most people the answer to the second question would also be yes, the Court found this issue to be more complicated. According to Section 7 of the Charter, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 8 is also in place to ensure “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” Determination of whether a search or seizure was reasonable according to section 8 is a two-step process and first a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 7 must be made. With regard to unreasonable search or seizure, the judge concluded that a reasonable expectation of privacy for the type of searches permitted by the Act has not been established and therefore they failed to establish that these sections of the Act are unconstitutional. The chance of getting a favourable ruling against unreasonable search or seizure was made more difficult by an intervener who was arguing against any restrictions on the search & seizure powers of the OSPCA. In April 2018, Animal Justice, an animal rights organization was granted permission to intervene in the case as a friend of the Court.
On the third issue Justice Minnema concluded the OSPCA Act is about animal protection and the prevention of cruelty to animals, not criminal law and therefore he concluded that the province does have jurisdiction.
Over the next year the Ontario government will need to decide how to re-write the OSPCA Act and consider whether a government agency might be chosen to enforce our animal care legislation. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) already has some enforcement responsibilities. Another possibility might be to appoint OSPCA officers by the provincial government which would provide oversight and accountability. As stakeholders it will be important to follow progress on the changes to the legislation and we should be prepared to offer input. Animal rights groups such as Animal Justice want to see more robust animal welfare legislation with increased enforcement powers.
Farmers, poultry fanciers, aviculturists and other hobbyists keeping animals need a legislative environment that promotes the care and welfare of animals while recognizing the interests and rights of citizens. Share your thoughts, concerns and suggestions with your Member of the Provincial Parliament (MPP) on the development of effective and appropriate animal welfare legislation for Ontario.
Search:
Categories
Archives
- April 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- October 2012
- May 2012
- September 2011