See web page stats about your site with minimal effort.


"Loophole or Deception by the OSPCA?"


Marineland: OSPCA welcomes more power from the province



Last week, the OSPCA released an update about its investigation into Marineland that said it had "areas of concern where certain deficiencies exist." Yet the agency appeared to qualify its investigation when it cited a section of the OSPCA Act: "It is important that the public understands that any animal found to be under the care of a licensed veterinarian is exempt under the OSPCA Act . . . and therefore is removed from the society's investigation."

Before we look at this I would like to show a section of the Residential Tenancy Act and what happened to us.

The Residential Tenancy Act stated that we were entitled to $3,000 compensation from the landlord. It also stated that the landlord was entitled to expenses for the removal of our homes .

It is for this reason, Marineland stated that they would only pay us compensation if we removed our homes from the property.

I found it very disturbing that somebody would put into the Act that we were entitled to compensation and then take it away. It didn't make sense to me.

The same way that it doesn't make sense to any of us reading this "Why the OSPCA would state that any animals under the care of a veterinarian is exempt"?

The following are both sections of the Residential Tenancy Act. Marineland tried to use these sections of the act in order to get out of paying compensation to all these families. I proved to the courts that these are two completely different sections of the act and that the compensation must be paid in order for the landlord to obtain the eviction.

In the end, this deception paid off for Marineland. They were only orderd to pay 7 families compensation. So 40 families not only lost their homes but didn't get any compensation.

TERMINATION OF TENANCIES

Termination under s. 50
164. (1) If a notice of termination is given under section 50 with respect to a tenancy agreement between the landlord and a tenant who owns a mobile home, the date for termination specified in the notice shall, despite subsection 50 (2), be at least one year after the date the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term. 2006, c. 17, s. 164 (1).
Same
(2) If a notice of termination is given under section 50 with respect to a tenancy agreement between the landlord and a tenant who owns a mobile home and the tenant is entitled to compensation under section 52, 54 or 55, the amount of the compensation shall, despite those sections, be equal to the lesser of the following amounts:
1. One year's rent.
2. $3,000 or the prescribed amount, whichever is greater. 2006, c. 17, s. 164 (2).


Landlord may dispose of mobile home
162 (3) The landlord may sell, retain for the landlord's own use or dispose of a mobile home in the circumstances described in subsection (1) beginning 60 days after the notices referred to in subsection (2) have been given if the tenant has not made a claim with respect to the landlord's intended disposal. 2006, c. 17, s. 162 (3).
(4) If, within six months after the day the notices have been given under subsection (2), the tenant makes a claim for a mobile home which the landlord has already sold, the landlord shall pay to the tenant the amount by which the proceeds of sale exceed the sum of,
(a) the landlord's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred with respect to the mobile home; and
(b) any arrears of rent of the tenant. 2006, c. 17, s. 162 (4).



Now Lets look at the Section of the OSPCA Act that the OSPCA is referring too

Subsection (1) does not apply to,
(a) a veterinarian providing veterinary care, or boarding an animal as part of its care, in accordance with the standards of practice established under the Veterinarians Act;
(b) a person acting under the supervision of a veterinarian described in clause (a); or
(c) a person acting under the orders of a veterinarian described in clause (a), but only in respect of what the person does or does not do in following those orders. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.


So What is Subsection (1)

Standards of care for animals
11.1 (1) Every person who owns or has custody or care of an animal shall comply with the prescribed standards of care with respect to every animal that the person owns or has custody or care of. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.

So, It is obvious that the Act is referring to a person. "Every Person". It is providing an exception for a Veterianrian since they are caring for the animal. This section of the Act does not refer to the actual animal and therefore the animal would not be exempt.

The animal no matter what would be protected under Section 11.2 (1) Causing Distress and Section 11.2 (2) Permitting Distress.

You will notice that in Section 11.2 (7) Veterinarians are again excempt from this because they are providing care for the animals.

So Veterinarians are exempt in regards to the Act, however pay special attention to Section 11.3 Veterinarian's Obligation to Report.



Lets Look at the Whole Section of the Act as Written

Obligations and Prohibitions re Care of and Harm to Animals

Standards of care for animals
11.1 (1) Every person who owns or has custody or care of an animal shall comply with the prescribed standards of care with respect to every animal that the person owns or has custody or care of. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of,
(a) an activity carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of agricultural animal care, management or husbandry; or
(b) a prescribed class of animals or animals living in prescribed circumstances or conditions, or prescribed activities. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Same
Subsection (1) does not apply to,
(a) a veterinarian providing veterinary care, or boarding an animal as part of its care, in accordance with the standards of practice established under the Veterinarians Act;
(b) a person acting under the supervision of a veterinarian described in clause (a); or
(c) a person acting under the orders of a veterinarian described in clause (a), but only in respect of what the person does or does not do in following those orders. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Prohibitions re distress, harm to an animal
Causing distress
11.2 (1) No person shall cause an animal to be in distress. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Permitting distress
(2) No owner or custodian of an animal shall permit the animal to be in distress. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Training, permitting animals to fight
(3) No person shall train an animal to fight with another animal or permit an animal that the person owns or has custody or care of to fight another animal. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Owning animal fighting equipment, structures
(4) No person shall own or have possession of equipment or structures that are used in animal fights or in training animals to fight. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Harming law enforcement animals
(5) No person shall harm or cause harm to a dog, horse or other animal that works with peace officers in the execution of their duties, whether or not the animal is working at the time of the harm. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Exception
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of,
(a) an activity permitted under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 in relation to wildlife in the wild;
(b) an activity permitted under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 or the Fisheries Act (Canada) in relation to fish;
(c) an activity carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of agricultural animal care, management or husbandry; or
(d) a prescribed class of animals or animals living in prescribed circumstances or conditions, or prescribed activities. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Same
(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to,
(a) a veterinarian providing veterinary care, or boarding an animal as part of its care, in accordance with the standards of practice established under the Veterinarians Act;
(b) a person acting under the supervision of a veterinarian described in clause (a); or
(c) a person acting under the orders of a veterinarian described in clause (a), but only in respect of what the person does or does not do in following those orders. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Veterinarians' obligation to report
11.3 Every veterinarian who has reasonable grounds to believe that an animal has been or is being abused or neglected shall report his or her belief to an inspector or an agent of the Society. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.


"Summary"


Whenever I questioned the Residential Tenancy Act, I was told that it was written in fairness for both landlords and tenants. There definately is room for improvements and updates since most of the act was written in the 70's.

As I studied the act I realized that there was a lot of protection in the act as long as you are familiar with it and know what sections apply to you.

If it wasn't for me learning the Residential Teancy Act and my Rights we would of never been awarded the little compensation that we did. Because Marinelands lawyers were citing sections of the act that they claimed would of created a wash. Where they would pay us compensation, and then we would have to pay them to remove our homes. Therefore they were doing us a favour by calling it equal.

As long as nobody challenges the OSPCA, in regards to the section of the OSPCA Act that they are citing in order to exempt the many animals at Marineland from their investigation. Then we are left to assume that it is true.

Its important to note: For the OSPCA to come forward and state this before they have finished their investigation.

In my opinion they are stating this to see if the public will challenge it.
In my opinion they are admitting that their are concerns with animals at the park and that is why they are using this loophole to avoid having to do anything with these animals.

This Government has to recognize that our Animal Protection laws are inadequate and their is much room for improvement.
However, as Ric O'Barry stated we need to be putting more pressure on the Veterinarians since they also have an Act to follow.
I also think we should be challenging the OSPCA as to what section of the OSPCA Act are they referring to exempting the animals at Marineland under a Veterinary's Care.