[luckypenny]

I don't know Love4himies . Depending on how this is interpreted, it could actually turn out in Kelly's favor (I have to mention, I don't recall Kelly saying she'll be suing the pound in particular, nor the adoptive family. I won't be guessing either).

Originally Posted by Love4himies

Got this from the Manitoba Care Act:
Immunity from action
38 No action or proceeding may be commenced against the minister, the director, an agent of the director, an animal protection officer, a caregiver, or a member of a licence appeal board or an advisory committee for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a responsibility or in the exercise or intended exercise of an authorized action under this Act, or for any neglect or default in the performance of a responsibility or the exercise of an authorized action in good faith.

Would the AC officer not submitting the ticket to city hall be considered an act carried out in good faith?

Originally Posted by Love4himies

Here is another exerpt:

Companion animal may be sold

17(1) The director may sell, give away or destroy a companion animal that has been seized under subsection 9(1) if

(a) the director has provided a written notice to the owner of the animal that the animal will be sold, given away or destroyed;

(b) seven days have elapsed since a notice was provided to the owner under clause (a); and

(c) the owner of the animal has not delivered a notice of objection to the minister under subsection 18(1) and served a copy on the director.

Not sure if this would apply at all. Kelly didn't receive any notices because the pound didn't know who the owner was .

Originally Posted by Love4himies

Here is an exerpt from Brandon City Bylaws:

16. No liability shall attach to the Animal Control Officer, to the Pound Agent, to the Pound Agent's
employees, to the City's employees or agents, or to the City for any dog or cat destroyed or injured while
being captured or seized, or during impoundment.
[AM. B/L 6171/20/94]

Doesn't apply either as the dog wasn't injured nor destroyed.

Originally Posted by Love4himies

and:

(b) upon the expiration of seventy-two hours from the service of the notice under subsection 11(e), if
the dog or cat has not been redeemed by its owner, the Pound Agent shall be authorized to sell
the dog or cat for an amount sufficient to cover, where possible, all applicable impound fees as
set out in the City's annual fee schedule, and vaccination costs, but in no case shall a dog or cat
be released from the pound until a current City dog or cat license has been purchased for said
dog or cat.
[AM. B/L 6171/20/94; B/L 6603]

This seems to be the only bylaw that offers some protection to the pound. However, it doesn't necessarily mean she's not entitled to get her dog back.

As horrible as I find it, I've seen instances (animal cruelty cases) where judges have sided with the original owners based on technicalities. In this situation, I'm guessing the fact that the AC didn't originally submit the ticket to the city can be considered a technicality in favor of Kelly.

In addition to my last comment, I don't think I've ever seen a law that states an animal is taken away permanently from it's family because it was errant. I understand a fine, but permanent removal? It's the first time the pound was involved, the AC officer didn't submit his ticket, and as a result, Kelly, after calling City Hall did not receive a report that her dog was found.

Originally Posted by Love4himies

My point being we maybe shouldn't be giving Kelly any false hopes that she may be able to sue, it is not fair to her or to her family.

Sounds to me like Kelly may indeed have a chance. I'm no lawyer but know enough that the law can be interpreted many different ways depending on the individual circumstances. Furthermore, laws are updated and/or changed all the time because someone decided to do something about it ie. legal action proceedings. Based on what Kelly had mentioned, sounds to me like the city she resides in is already considering changes.