BROADCASTS.com

b'

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

A dispute over the adoption of a dog named Maddie ended up in court after the woman who \\u201crescued\\u201d and sold her tried to get her puppies back to sell.

The dispute involved a woman in Port Alberni who has a business selling dogs that the judge concluded was misrepresented to be a registered non-profit organization called Ziggy\\u2019s Rescue.

A family purchased Maddie from the woman for $600 and signed a document entitled Foster and Adoption Contract.

The contract specified that Maddie needed to be spayed, but it turned out she was pregnant, so this wasn\\u2019t possible until the puppies were born.

When the woman who was operating Ziggy\\u2019s Rescue found out that Maddie was pregnant, she insisted that she get the puppies because she wished to sell them. The woman showed up at the home of the family that purchased Maddie and was screaming, \\u201cpuppy thieves,\\u201d called the police, and yelled, \\u201cwe will bury you\\u201d at the family.\\xa0

The woman operating Ziggy\\u2019s Rescue ultimately sued the family in small claims court, seeking $5,000 in \\u201clost revenue\\u201d and to get Maddie back.

The judge hearing the case, concluded that the woman operating Ziggy\\u2019s Rescue was not a reliable witness. He found that she had misrepresented that she was operating a non-profit organization when she was operating a business. The judge asked the woman if she declared her income, and she responded, \\u201cnot at this time,\\u201d and that \\u201cwe will get caught up.\\u201d

The judge concluded that various terms in the Foster and Adoption Contract were unreasonable and unenforceable. He also concluded that Maddie\\u2019s best interest should be a consideration when interpreting the contract on the basis that \\u201cwe need to recognize that dogs, and other pets, are not simply \\u201cthings\\u201d like a chair or a car.\\u201d

The judge concluded that \\u201cThe time has come for Maddie to finally know she is in her forever home and that the defendant\\u2019s family are made whole.\\u201d

Also, on the show, a case involving BC Mink Breeders is discussed. In 2021 the BC government decided that mink farming should be phased out in the province by 2025 based on the risk they pose to public health. There was evidence that mink could catch and transmit COVID-19 and a concern that this could result in a dangerous mutation of the virus.

The Mink Breeders are challenging the decision, alleging that it was unreasonable. To do so, they are seeking access to the evidence considered by the provincial cabinet. The provincial government did not want to disclose this information.

The judge hearing the case concluded that while the concept of public interest immunity can be used to keep sensitive and confidential documents secret, it was not absolute. As a result, the government has been ordered to provide an affidavit detailing what documents it wished to keep secret and on what basis public interest immunity was being claimed for each of them so that the judge can decide what should be disclosed.

Finally, on the show, a case involving a small strata corporation and permission to cross a deck to get to a set of stairs leading to a backyard is discussed.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

\\xa0