Lawsuit: time line/Background
BC SPCA sues AAS for defamation in Supreme Court
Meet the Defendants
The action was commenced August 30th, 2004.
Please be assured that no donations to AAS are being used to pay our legal bills. President Judy Stone is using the equity in her home to defend the lawsuit.
All donations to AAS are used to fund our welfare, rescue, and advocacy mandates.
Our leal team are lawyers Dale Sanderson Q.C. and Tina Mihoc of Davis LLP; and Sandra Sutherland Q.C.
ANIMAL ADVOCATES SOCIETY FIGHTS BC SPCA LAWSUIT
Large amounts of SPCA funds have been spent trying to silence the small volunteer, not-for-profit group and its AAS website.
Lawsuit Time Line Short Form: scroll down to bottom
Animal Advocates Society (AAS) is a BC based organization that acts on behalf of abandoned and suffering animals. AAS works around the principles of research, rescue, rehabilitate, rehome, and reform.
“In order to defend this lawsuit, which could cost up to $500,000, I’ve had to use my home’s equity. Whose money is the SPCA using?” said Judy Stone, founder of the Animal Advocates Society. “Wouldn’t that money be better used on spaying and neutering the animals it sells and treating disease instead of killing or selling sick animals?”
February 2007: the BC SPCA attempted to silence the Animal Advocates Society by applying to the BC Supreme Court for an extraordinary "confidentiality order". The order would have prevented AAS and the other defendants from making any use of documents included in the BC SPCA's List of Documents for any purpose outside the litigation, unless they could establish the document was "otherwise lawfully available in the public domain".
AAS opposed the application. The Order the BC SPCA was seeking would have covered several hundred documents that the AAS already possesses. AAS argued that this action would unfairly limit its freedom of expression as an animal welfare advocacy group, to have to prove those documents were "lawfully available in the public domain", before it could use them in ways related to its work but unrelated to the lawsuit.
In its affidavit sworn in response to the BC SPCA's application, AAS referred to seven other specific instances where the BC SPCA had either threatened or brought defamation actions against other persons or groups that had made negative statements about the organization. It has always been AAS's position that the BC SPCA's lawsuit against it and the other defendants is a "SLAPP" suit, meant to discourage AAS and others from making statements about the SPCA that it considers critical.
The BC SPCA abandoned its application for the extraordinary confidentiality order it was seeking.
“We are not the first organization to be threatened or sued by the SPCA,” said Stone. “The SPCA won’t disclose how much it has spent to silence people by paying them or threatening them.”
“Surely something is very wrong when BC SPCA Directors quit and post their reasons on the AAS WatchDog board, saying that the only place to know what is really going on with cruelty prevention in BC is to read AAS,” said BC SPCA past-president Rick Sargent.
LAWSUIT BACKGROUNDER
The Goal
By publishing materials concerning the BC SPCA, whether critical of it or not, on the AAS website and in WatchDog posts, emails, newsletters, and letters to the SPCA and others, it has always been the goal of AAS, to bring about lasting positive change to the BC SPCA and its policies, practices, and procedures, as the largest and most powerful animal welfare organization in the province. This has been stated on the AAS website for seven years. AAS has repeatedly written that it does not want to do the SPCA any financial harm; that in fact we want the SPCA to be financially strong so that it may practice real animal welfare and do real cruelty prevention according to the standards we believe animal-lovers expect and the many small alternative societies practice. For several years after the SPCA announced in 2001 that it would reform its animal-disposing policies and practices, AAS defended some very questionable actions that the SPCA continued, for the oft-stated reason that we were trying to be fair to the SPCA and give it the time necessary to radically change an entrenched animal-disposal business. Over the last four years, we also organized letter-writing campaigns that resulted in the SPCA finally changing a number of important animal-welfare policies that many people found shockingly unethical. Although the SPCA held a Community Consultation process in 2001, and in its report pointed out that the contracting business of animal control/disposal (the dog-catcher) was causing the most public dissatisfaction and loss of support for the SPCA, the animal control/disposal contracting business is still being aggressively pursued by the SPCA.
What AAS urges for the BC SPCA is animal welfare reform similar to that of the San Francisco SPCA, which came several years ago. The first thing the reformers of the San Francisco SPCA did, was refuse animal control contracts.
THE LAWSUIT
In August, 2004, the BC SPCA, a large and powerful statutory body, commenced an action in B.C. Supreme Court (L042174) against AAS, a tiny unincorporated group of concerned citizens; Judy Stone; and some other supporters of AAS, claiming that postings critical of the BC SPCA on the AAS website are defamatory. AAS, Judy Stone, and the other defendants engaged counsel and filed defences to the 65 page statement of claim.
In October 2005 all parties attempted mediation of the BC SPCA claim, which attempt failed because of what we considered problematic clauses in the pre-mediation agreement.
Several days before Christmas 2005, all the defendants were served with an amended statement of claim.
Between August 2004 and March 2007 the parties exchanged documents and materials, made motions, attended court, and carried out all the other expensive procedures inherent in litigation.
June 2007: SPCA amends its Statement of Claim again. It discontinued and abandoned its claim for defamation relating to comments on the AAS website which dealt with issues of incompetence by the SPCA, and it dropped two of the defendants from the action.
Examinations for Discovery and Amended Statement of Defense: From April to June 2007 the Defendants attended several days of examinations for discovery where they were questioned by the SPCA lawyers. The SPCA representative, Mr. Craig Daniell, was examined by our lawyer for 6 days during July and August of 2007. The trial originally set for 20 days was to commence on September 13, 2007 and last 4 weeks. It was, however, adjourned because we have prepared an amended statement of defence which now contains approximately 43 pages of particulars of alleged misconduct of the SPCA. Those particulars should be completed shortly and we will then apply to the Court for permission to amend the statement of defence accordingly.
The trial will then be set for an estimated 5 to 6 weeks. The costs will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This money could have been spent on sick and suffering animals
SLAPP SUITS
AAS has alleged that this litigation against it, is designed to suppress criticism of the BC SPCA and its operations by AAS and others. In other words, AAS believes that this lawsuit is a "SLAPP" suit.
"Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation", or SLAPP, is a phrase coined by US researchers to describe a class of lawsuit that seems designed more to silence public criticism than to receive legitimate compensation. The researchers state: "In contrast to most litigation, the SLAPP suit is brought, not to resolve a problem, but to remove a controversy from the political arena..." As the target of one SLAPP suit stated: "The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from unfair attack. In practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny. Defamation actions and threats to sue for defamation are often used to try to silence those who criticize people with money and power."
COSTS
AAS considers that instead of funding improved animal welfare, the BC SPCA funds lawsuits and threats of lawsuits against the advocates of reform. How many more attempts have been made by the SPCA to use or threaten to use the courts to suppress complainants' information? How many lawyers have been hired to negotiate out-of-court settlements with complainants and ex-employees? BC SPCA members and donors deserve an answer to that question. BC SPCA members and donors also deserve to know how many hundreds of thousands the SPCA has paid in legal bills for the litigation against AAS. SPCA members have asked and received no answer at all.
The defendants abhor this litigation as they consider that every dollar spent by the BC SPCA and by themselves on this litigation, is a dollar that will not be used to assist animals in need. However, they believe that they must nonetheless continue to defend their right to express their opinions on animal-welfare and to speak out against what they perceive to be animal-welfare errors made by the BC SPCA.
Judy Stone, using the equity in her home, is paying for the defense of the lawsuit. In order to meet the onerous costs imposed by this lawsuit, Judy Stone will have to sell her house to continue to defend the action against herself and AAS.
TIME LINE SHORT FORM
January 2001: First legal threat
October 2002: Second legal threat
August 2004: The SPCA starts a legal action for defamation in BC Supreme Court
October 2005: SPCA-demanded mediation abandoned over wording of SPCA’s pre-mediation agreement
December 2005: Amended Statement of Claim filed by SPCA
Spring 2006: Notices to Admit served by the SPCA on some of the defendants
February 2007: BC SPCA Application for an Order of Confidentiality
February 2007:Application abandoned
June 2007: SPCA amended its Statement of Claim again. It discontinued and abandoned the part of its claim relating to comments on the AAS website which dealt with issues of incompetence by the SPCA;
a large, easily defendable section that cost money for Stone to defend
April to July 2007: Oral Examinations for Discovery of nine defendants and the SPCA's CEO, Craig Daniell
September 2007: Trial adjourned
2008: Trial to be reset for 5 to 6 weeks
