Update

Digby Court Pretrial : May 18th 2010 --> trial is set for Oct 19-26 2010

"After numerous delays a trial date has finally been set for a Digby County couple facing animal cruelty charges. Five days have been set aside next October for the trial of Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey.

The two have made headlines over the years for running a puppy mill and have previously been convicted of animal cruelty charges.

A former customer, Esther Smith, whose dog died hours after it was bought, says they shouldn't even be allowed to own a goldfish when this is over." source: ttp://www.k-rock893.com/index.asp?mn=2&id=240&cc=2

Between: Her Cite as: R. v. Bailey, 2009 NSPC 3

Majesty The Queen v. Dana Bailey and Gail Benoit

Details here :
D E C I S I O N

~~~~>below is snipped from above document.

FINDINGS

A) Abuse of process
[42] Pursuant to s.12(4) of the ACPA, Mr. Joyce and Ms Noel, peace officers within the meaning of that Act, have powers to investigate allegations of cruelty to animals. They did so, by obtaining a warrant as per the provisions of s. 2B of the Summary Proceedings Act, RSNS 1989, c. 450.

[43] Their grounds to obtain such a warrant were provided by Ms. Nugent, who was very specific and detailed in her description of the two puppies, their dirty state, protruding bellies and anuses, the mite poop present in their ears, and the bite marks on their bellies. Mr. Joyce believed her and started the proceeding. There is nothing irregular in this.

[44] At trial, it is clear Ms Nugent has been campaigning against Ms Benoit for some times, for what she sees as animal abuse. There is no evidence that aspect was known to Mr. Joyce, who acted in good faith, in accordance with his duties.

[45] There was reasonable ground for Mr. Joyce to investigate, and he did so in accordance with his authorizing Statute.

[46] In executing the first Search Warrant, the officers obtained further evidence of animals in distress (lack of adequate care, food, water or shelter, s. 2(2)(a) of ACPA. They thus obtained another Search Warrant to seize those animals. ACPA only provides for such eventuality in the case of a dwelling house, but not other buildings (s. 12).

[47] A great deal of time has been expended on whether the SPCA was in effect retaliating for being the defendant in a civil lawsuit. There is no evidence to conclude that it did, and that its actions, through its officers, were improper. Mr. Joyce and Ms Noel were aware of the previous proceedings, but only superficially; they did not know the defendants personally; and acted on the reasonable rounds provided or obtained, and nothing more. The Society has a duty and the powers to prevent cruelty to animals, and may act when it has reasonable grounds to act. It had in this case. It may appear suspicious, but only to the defendants.

[48] It is also argued that there is abuse, given the campaign Ms. Nugent has waged against Ms Benoit, on the Internet, through e-mails. Some samples were provided. It is clear she is an advocate for the propre care of animals, and is outspoken about it; yet her observations of the puppies were detailed and accurate, appeared to come from an informed observer, who also testified at trial, and are worthy of belief, providing reasonable grounds to initiate the investigation.

[49] There is no evidence that the SPCA was in anyway aware of, or a party, to Ms. Nugent’s campaign. R. v. Shirose [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565, dealing with a police’s reverse-sting operation, to sell drug to the accused, amounting to drug trafficking, but has no application to the case at bar.

[50] The Crown, in the previous proceedings, exercised its discretion to stay the proceedings, at the third trial, and did so on reasonable and substantial grounds (substantial court time; a possible $200.00 fine; no expectation of further prohibition). It is not evidence of abuse of process.

[51] It is also argued that the role of the SPCA is that of a conciliator, not a prosecutor, at least at the beginning of an investigation (s. 12(2), ACPA). Indeed there is evidence that the Society has done that with other defendants. On the facts of this case, however, the defendants have clearly stated in September 2007, when this was attempted, that the only way the officers would be able to continue to discharge their duty was through a Search Warrant, and the defendants have been vocal and abusive in conveying this message. The officers were aware of this position. On both the 24th and 26th of October, 2007, both defendants, and Ms Benoit, particularly, adopted that same abusive attitude, preempting any useful dialogue and conciliation. The officers were justified in acting more forcefully. Indeed, the defendants’ behaviour forestalled any other avenue.

[52] On the evidence, this is only the second prosecution against the defendants, by the SPCA, on different allegations of cruelty, the first one really being only one cause, with two trials and two appeals. Given the numbers of puppies Ms Benoit claims to sell, about 200 per month, or some twenty-eight to thirty thousands up to October 2007, this could hardly be abuse of process. Above all, present were the necessary reasonable grounds for the officers to act.

[53] There is no “...affront to fair play and decency ...disproportionate to the societal interest in the effective prosecution “ in this case (R. v. Conway [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659). There is no abuse of process. It is a justifiable prosecution under a provincial statute, for allegations, founded on reasonable grounds, of animals in distress.

B) Animals in distress
[54] I will deal with the charge contrary to s. 11(2) of ACPA: that the defendants,
between the 24th and 26th days of October, 2007, did, being an owner of an animal
or persons in charge of animals, to wit, puppies/dogs, cause or permit said animals to be in distress. [I have amended and pluralized “persons” and “animals” , to reflect the evidence, as per s. 601, Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, Chap. C-46, see R.v. Wallace, 2002 Carswell NS 158].

[55] S. 2 (2) of the same Act provides that [a]n animal is in distress ... where the animal is (a) in need of adequate care, food, water or shelter; or (b) injured, sick, in pain, or suffering undue hardship, privation or neglect.

[56] The defendants say that the animals in their care were not in distress, were well taken care of in the short time they were in their possession; they knew about the possible health issues to which puppies are exposed, but these were not present; and they relied on their owner’s representation of any treatment, which, they say, they had received.

[57] Both Mr. Joyce and Ms Noel saw, upon seizure, that the puppies were in distress: distended (swollen) bellies, protruding anuses, lack of water and/or food, dirty cages/kennels/boxes. The conditions were not terrible, but below reasonable standards, and not treated. Indeed, after proper diagnostic and care, the puppies mended quickly, within a few days.

[58] The defendants attack the credibility of not only the officers, but also of Dr. Carnegie, their veterinarian, since he is paid by the Society, and thus biased, they say.

[59] Dr. Carnegie’s evidence was straightforward, knowledgeable. He formulated his opinion from well observed facts. I have no hesitation to accept it as factual and truthful. It is his business, his profession, and he brings to it the necessary independence of mind, and objectivity.

[60] His evidence shows without a doubt these puppies were in distress from a physiological point of view, unnecessarily so as the cure was simple, inexpensive, and very effective, over a very short time. Such a distress could easily have been prevented, by a timely assessment and actions.

[61] He observed puppies that had been neglected and were in a distressful state given the obvious symptoms: pot belly, lack of body fat, poor physical appearance, presence of adult parasites, diarrhea, what could be described as a listless attitude, the straining for bowel movement. All were due to poor hygiene and lack of care. Once proper hygiene, food and water, and medication were administered, he said, their state changed drastically and rapidly.

[62] I reject the defendants’ evidence on that point. Specifically, the extended bellies were not caused by overfeeding, but by worms, or other conditions, which had not been treated. Indeed Mrs Harlowe’s evidence -- she is the owner of the two puppies, the subject matter of the first Warrant --is specific: I never wormed them... All dogs have worms... I did not say I had wormed them, to Gail [Benoit]. This contradicts the defendants’ evidence. All the evidence, including that of Dr. Carnegie, contradicts that of the defendants on that point as well. I find that the puppies were in distress, as defined in subsections (a) and (b) of s. 2(2) of the Act: they lacked food and water and were suffering from privation and neglect.

C) Mistake of fact and due diligence
[63] This is a strict liability offence: R. v. Sault Ste Marie (City of) (1976), 30 C.C.C. (2d) 257, affd [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299. The defendants may establish a defence of mistake of fact or due diligence, on a balance of probabilities. The ultimate burden of proof always rests on the shoulders of the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[64] With respect to the defendants’ belief that the puppies were fine, if such was argued as a mistake of fact, it would be unjustified. Both have enough experience in their business to know the symptoms of the presence of parasites; they should have been able to identify them. They did not. Indeed they deny the existence of their actual state. Yet their presence were visible to any informed observer. There is no a mistake of fact.

[65] On first observation during the execution of the Search Warrants, Mr. Joyce and Ms Noel remarked on the lack of food and water, the feces on the newspaper used for bedding. Mr. Bailey said it was his responsibility to look after the puppies, and did so regularly. The defendants presented photographs of the same kennels/cages, showing them to be clean and properly bedded. I do not accept Mr. Bailey’s evidence on that point. That was not their condition at the time of the officers’ observation.

[66] Obviously, conditions will change hourly, and the defendants are not held to a standard of perfection. Puppies will drink the water provided, eat their food, urinate and defecate, at any time. A person in charge is not expected to provide actual care 24 hours a day, only reasonable care.

[67] It is clear, from the evidence, puppies ought to have water at all times. They ought to live in a clean environment. They did not, except for the German Shepherd. The defendants did not have a system in place to ensure they were cared for properly, particularly during daylight hours. Nor was there any provision for a some liquid replacement for Ms. Harlowe’s puppies, which had been weaned from their mother’s milk at home.

[68] The defendants are experienced dog owners. To all appearances they keep their own, in the house, very well. Obviously the defendants used very different standards when it came to the puppies kept in their business of “dog broker”, and did not provide the same quality of care.

[69] Knowing that all dogs have parasites, one would expect the defendants, due to their extensive experience, to assess accurately the presence of worms and other parasites, and take necessary precautions to deal with the presence of such parasites. They may rely on the representations of their owners; yet are not absolved from using their own experience and observation, and assess accurately the conditions of the animals. They may need professional assistance. It is their decision. But they ought to inspect objectively each animal brought into their care, and have a plan in place to remedy any identified issues.

[70] Given the numbers of puppies they deal with, at the minimum they ought to examine and assess each puppy’s physical state (weights, size, age), and health status, record these and any other relevant observations they may make. Photos, given the ease of doing so now with digital equipment, may help them. They did nothing of the sort. Indeed the defendants ignored the state of health of their charge, and were blind to their most basic needs. I do not accept their evidence there was no problem. The evidence is overwhelming: the puppies were in need of food, water, care and attention of a veterinary.

[71] The defendants simply ignored the obvious signs, hoping for a quick turnaround, and a quick profit -- which could be considerable -- with little investment on their part but for some effort and time. They apparently did not even have a single dose of the most popular and common medication to administer to these puppies, and did not take any step to ascertain their needs. They did not show due diligence to avoid the commission to the actus reus of the offence.

[72] At the very least, in light of the number of puppies/dogs they handle, coming from different homes, and the known risks of infection, they ought to consider a practice, such as the one at the SPCA kennel: institute a cleaning cycle, to prevent or protect the dogs and puppies from worms: day one, bleach and water, the second day a chemical is used to deal with parasites; and that cycle is repeated every two days along with daily cleaning.

[73] Their asking prices appear to be several hundred dollars per puppy. Their cost, on the evidence, one to two hundred dollars. It is thus a profitable business, with little overhead when the puppies are taken on consignment, and little work if they are not looked after properly. The defendants have allowed the pursuit of easy profits to trump the proper supervision and care for the well being of these puppies.

D) Assault and Interference
[74] Ms Noel was a peace officer, in the execution of her duties, pursuant to ACPA. Ms Benoit knew it. Faced with a Search Warrant, lawfully issued, Ms. Benoit had to comply. She could argue later, in court, any legal issues. In fact she was not objecting as to its legality, only that, in an emotional outburst, she did not agree with the presence of the officers on her property, and barred Ms Noel from coming into the home. A Search Warrant does not depend on the permission of the landowner for its execution; indeed it supercedes that right. I accept the evidence of Ms Noel on that point. Ms Benoit was unfortunately too emotional then and at trial, for a trier of fact to rely on the accuracy of her recall.

[75] In effect, Ms Benoit acknowledges the assault against Ms Noel, on the 24th of October 2007, by saying, at para 36 above, “If she had tackled Ms. Noel she would have felt it. If she did step on Ms. Noel’s foot, it is nowhere near what they put us through”. Ms Noel felt both. Indeed, on the whole of the evidence, I find that Ms Benoit, in anger, stepped on Ms Noel’s foot and pushed her with her left shoulder.

CONCLUSIONS
[76] The Application for a Judicial Stay is dismissed as there is no abuse of process.

[77] On the totality of the evidence, the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants, as persons in charge, have breached s. 11(2) of the ACPA.

[78] Pursuant to R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, since the charges pursuant to s. 446(1)(b) [my amendment] of C.C.C., or s. 11(1) of ACPA describes substantially the same delict, a stay is ordered to avoid double jeopardy.

[79] The Crown has also established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms Benoit has committed the offences, as charged, contrary to ss. 270 and 129 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[80] Therefore, I find Ms Benoit guilty of these two criminal offences. I find both defendants guilty of the provincial offence contrary to s. 11(2) of the ACPA.

_____________________________
Jean-Louis Batiot, J.P.C.

May 27 2009 Court Appearance -CTV News

Video is here ( facebook)

Agency says N.S. has some of best animal anti-cruelty laws in Canada

BRIDGEWATER — An American agency that works for the legal protection of animals says Nova Scotia has one of the best systems in Canada when it comes to anti-cruelty laws.

"I was kind of surprised Nova Scotia was ranked in the top tier," said Mary Hill, secretary of Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said Thursday.

"Upon closer reflection you have to bear in mind this is comparative and it says a lot more about the ranking of the other provinces that are lower on the list than it does about our legislation. It just means the other provinces have worse legislation."

The California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund released a report this week that said Nova Scotia is "one of the worst places to be an animal abuser."

For the second year in a row, it ranked this province in the top tier, along with British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, for its animal protection laws.

New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Quebec were rated on the bottom tier while Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Saskatchewan were placed in the middle tier.

Ontario was judged best while the Northwest Territories and Nunavut tied for worst.

The report said Nova Scotia ranked high because its laws allow judges to order abusers to reimburse the costs of care for an impounded animal, place restrictions on the abuser’s ability to own animals in the future and imposes increasing fines on repeat offenders.

But Ms. Hill said even though the province requires the society to enforce the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act and the new Animal Protection Act, it only gives the society $3,000 a year to do that.

Despite that, the society secured three animal cruelty convictions. They include Digby-area puppy brokers Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey; Alan Elliott, who had 130 cows seized from his farm in Spa Springs, Annapolis County, and Alice MacIsaac and her mother Zonda MacIsaac of Celtic Pets Rescue in West Bay Road, Cape Breton. The latter case alone cost the society more than $110,000.

The Agriculture Department gave the society a one-time lump sum of $100,000 last month "but it’s a drop in the bucket," Ms. Hill said. "We welcome it, but it’s not enough and it’s not ongoing."

That money covers the salary and expenses of 1.5 cruelty investigators. The society has 2.5 and Ms. Hill said it needs at least six to fulfil its obligations.

The society investigated 1,264 cruelty complaints in 2008 and 496 this year. Thirteen charges have been laid as of May 21. Other than the money from the Agriculture Department, the society’s only other sources of money are donations, bequests and fundraisers. Last year, with the help of 78 fundraisers across the province, the society raised just over $425,000, which left it with a $35,000 shortfall.

The province has passed new legislation called the Animal Protection Act, which requires veterinarians to report suspected abuse and to define acceptable standards of care for animals. But Ms. Hill said the legislation doesn’t go far enough.

However, since the regulations haven’t been written yet, Ms. Hill hopes the society will have a role in developing them so that they include specific wording that deals with animal fighting and puppy mills.

( bware@herald.ca)
By BEVERLEY WARE South Shore Bureau
Fri. May 22 - 6:08 AM

Benoit & Bailey to launch appeal

It shall be known that ....
The lawyer that represented the Digby's most Famous Puppy Miller/killer's has stepped down from the case. The pair will be representing themselves @ the next court hearing for other charges of animal cruelty from earlier this year.

THEY ARE STILL OUT SELLING PUPPIES

~~~~~~~~~~~

May 8, 2009

Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey are launching an appeal of the verdict in an animal cruelty case and an assault charge that saw Benoit serve 21 days in the Burnside Womens Correctional Facility. The pair were also fined more than 3 thousand dollars each. The documents for appeal were filed yesterday, and they will appear in Supreme Court on the 27th of this month. Benoit tells the Maritime News Network that the appeal will outline 21 separate legal errors that were made by the judge during the trial. Benoit and Bailey also have another animal cruelty charge pending.

GAIL BENOIT DID 14 DAYS IN JAIL, OUT OF HER 21 DAY SENTENCE.

THIS IS POSTED ON CRAIG's LIST: (Because not one vet in this local area will stand up on the pairs behalf.)

Date: 2009-04-29, 1:02PM ADT PostingID: 1145826456

I am looking for a vet that is willing to come to court and give their expert evedience on the description of canine herpeis or chv1 dog diesese..

You will be paid top dollar and evrthing will be taken care of.... This will include going to court for 1 day..

Please I need the help on this ......

IF YOU YOURSELF OR IF YOU KNOW OF A VET THAT MAY DO THIS LET ME KNOW...
1 902 245 5340

Puppy Broker Faints

CTV news Apr 9. 09

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1116020.html

DIGBY — Gail Benoit, a Digby County woman accused of selling sick and dying puppies, slumped to the floor in Digby provincial court Thursday after she was sentenced to 21 days behind bars for resisting arrest.

Upon hearing Judge Jean-Louis Batiot say that she was headed to jail, Ms. Benoit glanced quickly to her right, then fell, rather slowly, to the floor.

Some in the audience laughed while others smiled as they watched two sheriff’s deputies try to help the woman.

The court recessed, and as Judge Batiot left the bench, Ms. Benoit’s husband began to shout profanities and threats, saying his wife sometimes chokes.

"If my wife chokes in that jail, you fellas are going to be held responsible," Dana Bailey hollered, at one point addressing his remarks to "Mr. Batiot."

"How could you do that? This is not fair," he yelled at the judge.

Police and sheriff’s officers hustled Mr. Bailey out of the courtroom, pushed him out the front door of the courthouse and told him to move along. His wife, who had recovered by then, was then led away to jail.

In the fall of 2007, a search warrant was executed and 10 puppies seized from the couple’s home near Digby.

After a trial late last year, Ms. Benoit and Mr. Bailey were convicted on Jan. 29 of animal cruelty and each was fined $1,500 on Thursday. Ms. Benoit was also convicted of resisting arrest, for which she was jailed Thursday, and assaulting an SPCA special constable, for which she was handed a suspended sentence.

Crown attorney Rosalind Michie said Thursday that Ms. Benoit and Mr. Bailey have sold as many as 30,000 dogs in the past 13 years, sometimes selling 200 in a month.

Some people who have bought puppies from Ms. Benoit have complained to the provincial SPCA that the dogs soon died.

Ms. Michie also told the court that this is Ms. Benoit’s third conviction since 1994 for assaulting a peace officer.

"The Crown takes that very seriously," she told Judge Batiot.

She said Ms. Benoit and Mr. Bailey, who called themselves puppy brokers during their trial last year, have never accepted responsibility for their actions.

"All along, nothing has ever been their fault," Ms. Michie said. "There is no expression of any remorse."

The prosecutor said after court that she "would have liked to have seen a prohibition of (owning) animals" placed on the couple. But she said that under the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, ownership of an abused or neglected animal is required for such a ban to be implemented, and it was determined during last year’s trial that the puppies weren’t owned by the couple but were merely possessed for the purpose of selling them.

Defence lawyer Michael Power said the level of neglect of the puppies was rather low. Although the animal cruelty charges dealt with 10 dogs, he said there is evidence that hundreds of dogs have passed through his clients’ care, the majority without complaint.

Mr. Power said Mr. Bailey, who turns 47 next week, is disabled and receives $869 a month from the Workers’ Compensation Board. Ms. Benoit, 39, also is disabled, the lawyer said, and gets $830 a month.

"They are not bad people. They are business people," Mr. Power said.

He said their puppy brokerage has been hurt by negative publicity.

"The business is basically in limbo now," he said.

Mr. Power also told the court that his clients sometimes speak their minds too freely in public.

"They blurt things out," he said.

"I’ve admonished them . . . I’ve told them to quiet down those emotions. But they do become emotional."

Ms. Benoit and Mr. Bailey must also pay $2,478 in restitution for care and treatment of the sick puppies, and Ms. Benoit will be on probation for 18 months.

Gail Benoit Faints at Prospect of Going to Jail
http://dogkisser.blogspot

Gail Benoit gets jail time for 2007 assault

You tube videos of today's proceedings:
Dana Screams @ CTV news
Dana Speaks Back
Dana Bailey Thrown out of court

April 9th 2009 by Jeanne Whitehead/Digby Courier

After shouting at Judge Jean-Louis Batiot, Dana Bailey continued his verbal tirade as he left the court house Jeanne Whitehead photo Gail Benoit gets jail time for 2007 assault
Benoit, Bailey each fined $1500 for animal cruelty

Today, seconds after Judge Jean-Louis Batiot sentenced Gail Benoit to 21 days jail time for her 2007 assault of SPCA special constable Nancy Noel, the female half of the Benoit Bailey puppy broker team began weeping and her knees buckled beneath her.

Her apparent medical crisis triggered a verbal outburst by her common law spouse, Dana Bailey.

“How could you do this to a woman who has had surgery on tumours in her neck?” Bailey yelled at the judge. “How could you do this? She has kids at home.”

Benoit and Bailey were also each fined $1,500 for animal cruelty and instructed to pay restitution of $2478 to the SPCA.

The April 16 sentencing was in response to being found guilty on assault and animal cruelty charges stemming from the 2007 seizure of 10 sick, malnourished puppies from their Roxville property.

The raid by SPCA officers (accompanied by RCMP officers) took place on two October days, a point that was duly noted by Judge Batiot.

The judge was prepared to disregard the fact that Benoit had two prior convictions in the mid 90s for assaulting peace officers, and sentenced her to 18 months probation on her first Oct. 2007 assault charge. But the fact that she assaulted and obstructed Noel two days later—at a time when she had already consulted with her lawyer—meant her behavior must be denounced.

Crown attorney Rosalind Michie had also asked the judge to ban Benoit and Bailey from animal ownership, but the law indicates that such a ban can be imposed when the animals that have suffered cruelty or neglect are owned by the abuser.

The Valley Bull puppies that were seized in October 2007 were owned Pat Harlow-Robar who expected Benoit and Bailey to sell the pups on her behalf.

Benoit and Bailey will appear in court again in September on animal cruelty charges relating to their 2008 sale of sick and dying puppies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Local News Update April 9, 2009

A woman convicted of animal cruelty and assault will spend 21 days in jail. The sentencing of Gail Benoit happened in Digby Court this morning, and Benoit passed out when she heard the ruling. Benoit and her husband Dana Bailey, who was also convicted on animal cruelty charges, have been fined and are prohibited from owning animals for the next 8 months, pending their trial on more animal cruelty charges.

The two who were selling puppies were charged after several of the dogs they sold died from Parvo Virus. Bailey became very loud upon hearing the ruling, and had to be escorted out of the courthouse by the RCMP. Benoit was sentenced to jail time because it's her third assault conviction. http://www.k-rock893.com/index.asp?mn=12

Crown attorney ponders Benoit-Bailey sentence

Will Puppies R Us duo be banned from owning animals?

by Jeanne Whitehead/Digby Courier

The Nova Scotia SPCA wants the courts to impose a long-term ban on animal ownership in the Gail Benoit-Dana Bailey case.
Crown Attorney Rosalind Michie requested that Benoit and Bailey be prohibited from owning animals when the Puppies R Us duo was found guilty of animal cruelty Jan. 29. The charges stemmed from the October 2007 seizure of sick malnourished pups from their property.

Because Benoit and Bailey’s lawyer, Michael Power was not present in court at the time of the verdict, Judge Batiot said he could not consider imposing the ban at that time.

Crown Attorney Rosalind Michie told the Courier she will be consulting with the SPCA in considering the range of sentence that is appropriate for the pair. They could be fined, they could be prohibited from owning animals—or the sentence could be a combination of the two.

Michie said after the 2007 seizure, Benoit and Bailey were charged with animal cruelty under both the provincial act and federal act, but because the charges were essentially the same, the guilty verdict and sentencing relate only to the provincial act.

This means Benoit and Bailey could be prevented from owning animals in Nova Scotia, but should they decide to move to another province, the ban would not apply.

The couple was also charged Jan. 5 under the provincial Animal Cruelty Prevention Act and the federal Criminal Code. Those charges stem from Benoit’s 2008 sale of pups that died of parvovirus within days, or hours, or leaving her hands.

RICK'S RANTS

Puppy brokers guilty!
Halifax News Net

" Guilty was the verdict in Digby provincial court yesterday, a decision roundly applauded by those involved in animal rescue. Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey have been on their hit list for years. The pair run Puppies 'R Us out of their Digby County home and have been the subject of many complaints over the years after dogs they sold got ill and even died. Often they would do their business from the back of a van in mall parking lots. The husband and wife team were tried on charges of animal cruelty after 10 puppies were seized from their home in the fall of '07. During the incident, Benoit threw a pup at an SPCA officer. The couple will be sentenced the end of March. The SPCA wants the two banned from ever owning or selling animals again. The courts do have the authority to impose such a ban. Let's hope the good judge throws the book at these two.

The provincial government also has to bring in tougher measures to deal with puppy mills which operate freely in Nova Scotia. That's right, there's no law declaring these operations to be illegal and no requirement for any special licensing to sell animals. Until the government cracks down, these fly by night operations will continue to thrive."

Thank you to another voice!

Friday Funny

On a more serious note...
Protest has been set over to feb 15
mark your calenders & bring your signs ;)
--> the day before the Infamous couple plea their Jan.5/6 animal cruelty charges

Puppies R Dead !!


Puppy BAN 4 Ever!!


The Bark That Can't Be Silenced.
- In Memory of Cinni Girl

CTV News Coverage Jan 29, 09

Benoit january 29 2009

Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey are convicted on all counts on animal cruelty charges stemming from puppies removed from their property by the NS SPCA in October, 2007 - and an assault charge against Gail Benoit

Digby County woman tells judge 'decision is ludicrous'

Gail Benoit and her husband, Dana Bailey, are to be sentenced March 26. (Brian Medel / Yarmouth Bureau)

Puppy sellers convicted of animal cruelty

DIGBY — A Digby County puppy seller convicted of animal cruelty and assault Thursday launched into a tirade against the judge who handed down the decision.

"I find you guilty," Judge Jean-Louis Batiot said to Gail Benoit, 39, as she stood beside her husband, Dana Bailey.

Mr. Bailey, 46, was also convicted of animal cruelty in Digby provincial court Thursday.

"I think that your decision is . . . ludicrous," Ms. Benoit shot back at the judge before denouncing her treatment.

Judge Batiot told her to take it up with her lawyer, raising his voice to be heard.

The lawyer for the couple, Michael Power of Bridgewater, was unable to attend court because of poor weather.

Ms. Benoit and Mr. Bailey were tried last year on charges of animal cruelty stemming from the seizure of 10 puppies from their Roxville home in October 2007.

Ms. Benoit was also charged with assaulting SPCA investigator Nancy Noel while the dogs were being taken during the execution of a search warrant. Ms. Benoit was convicted on that charge Thursday.

Outside court, Ms. Noel, an SPCA special constable, said she was at the couple’s home in 2007 when Ms. Benoit suddenly chucked a puppy at her.

"She threw the puppy at me, then she stepped on my foot and shoulder-checked me," Ms. Noel said.

The couple operates a business, Puppies R’ Us, that is listed on a government website as a partnership involved in the retail sale and delivery of puppies.

The address of the couple’s blue bungalow is the same address given for the puppy company.

Some people have complained to the SPCA about puppies they have purchased from Ms. Benoit. Some of the young dogs died soon after.

Judge Batiot did not read his written decision publicly Thursday but made sure the couple received a copy.

They are expected to be sentenced March 26.

As Judge Batiot announced his decision, Ms. Benoit seemed to have a hard time accepting her fate.

"This is going to be all over the Internet," she said, interrupting the judge.

Ms. Benoit also brought a couple of letter-sized sheets of paper and waved them toward the judge.

"This has got to stop," she said, reading "wanted . . . dead or alive" from one of the pieces of paper that appeared to be a mock wanted poster of Ms. Benoit.

When the judge told her to talk to her lawyer about it, she turned on her heel and left with her husband.

"Pay no mind to ’em. . . . Keep going. Keep going," Mr. Bailey said as his wife continued to spout off.

"Everybody beware. The SPCA are corrupt," she warned courtroom observers.

"Yeah, they’re crooks," added Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Bailey also indicated he was not interested in returning to court.

"There will be no sentence date," he said loud enough to be heard in the public gallery as they left in a huff.

Roger Joyce, another SPCA investigator in court Thursday, said his organization will push to ban the couple from owning or keeping animals.

( bmedel@herald.ca)

N.S. couple found guilty in notorious animal cruelty case

By BRIAN MEDEL Yarmouth Bureau
Thu. Jan 29 - 3:58 PM

DIGBY — A Nova Scotia judge convicted Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey of animal cruelty today after a trial last November in Digby provincial court.

Judge Jean-Louis Batiot also convicted Ms. Benoit of assaulting an SPCA constable.

The couple had been tried on charges of animal cruelty stemming from the seizure of 10 pups from their home near Digby in October of 2007.

They have been accused of selling sick puppies.

Ms. Benoit seemed to have a hard time accepting her fate today when Judge Batiot announced his decision.

“This is going to be all over the Internet,” she said, interrupting the judge.

Ms. Benoit also brought a couple of letter-sized sheets of paper and waved them toward the judge.

“This has got to stop,” she said, reading, “Wanted ... dead or alive,” from one of the pieces of paper which appeared to be a mock "Wanted" poster with Ms. Benoit as the fugitive.

When the judge told her to talk to her lawyer about it, she turned on her heel and left with her husband.

The couple's lawyer, Michael Power of Bridgewater, was unable to attend court because of poor weather.

The couple will return to court on March 26 for sentencing

GUILTY! Brokers to be sentenced Mar. 26

Benoit, Bailey guilty of animal cruelty, assault
Digby County puppy brokers to be sentenced Mar. 26 by Jeanne Whitehead/Digby Courier
Article online since January 29th 2009, 10:51

Benoit, Bailey guilty of animal cruelty, assault

Digby County puppy brokers to be sentenced Mar. 26

Digby County puppy brokers Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey were found guilty, today, Jan. 29, on two counts of animal cruelty stemming from the October 2007 seizure of 10 puppies from their Roxville property.

Gail Benoit was also found guilty of assaulting SPCA special constable Nancy Noel at the time of the seizure.

Dangerous road conditions prevented Benoit and Bailey’s lawyer, Mike Powers, from attending court and Judge Jean Louis Batiot advised that sentencing will take place March 26.

The 2007 seizure of 10 sick and malnourished puppies by Nova Scotia SPCA chief investigator Roger Joyce and special constable Nancy Noel followed complaints filed with the SPCA.

Both Noel and Joyce were present for Judge Batiot’s verdict and say they hope Benoit and Bailey will be prohibited from owning animals. Such an injunction could conceivably come prior to the March 26 sentencing date.

Joyce says he makes frequent checks on people who are prohibited from owning animals.

In addition to the charges from the 2007 seizure, Benoit and Bailey face animal cruelty charges filed three weeks ago—relating to their 2008 sale of puppies infected with the deadly parvovirus.

Gail Benoit addressed Judge Batiot after he read the verdict. “This has got to stop,” she said. “My family is terrified and people have threatened to burn my house down.”

“The SPCA is corrupt,” she said, as she left the courtroom.

The SPCA's Nancy Noel and Roger Joyce made the trip to Digby, on ice-covered roads, to hear the guilty verdict against puppy brokers Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey. Jeanne Whitehead photo

Cruella:

They Would Have You Believe Chapmans Kennels Are At Fault

Price: Free
Ad ID: 101884509

Address: Tatamagouche, NS, B0K 1V0 View map
Date Listed: 24-Jan-09


well as i have said many times the chapmans should not have sold puppies that wearnt weaned,
but as much as gail would have you believe her and dana arent guilty for those dying pups----i beg to differ as they knew those puppies were all dying, as 12 died on them, and they just took them out and supposedly buried them in there back yard . supposedly without wondering why they died ----which leads me to believe they knew why they died, and there for they had to rush out, and sell of the ones still barley alive, to get the money for them. before they died to AND they would also have to bury them or put them in the garbage ---but that would also mean no MONEY in there pockets ----so look here we come, to suck you people into buying these dying pups, so we get our MONEY -- and we dont care how many die, or how many men,women or children we hurt---JUST GIVES US YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY AND WE WILL GIVE YOU A LIFE TIME, OF REGRETS,PAIN AND SUFFERING ---ALONG WITH LARGE VET BILLS.
And as for chapmans shooting 175 dogs, they know how i feel about that, believe me they know. and as much as i dont approve of any animal abuse, and dont agree with what the chapmans have done----I STILL STAND FRIM IN MY BELEVING, THAT GAIL AND DANA KNEW EXCATLEY WHAT THEY WERE DOING ,WHEN SELLING THOSE DYING PUPPIES. AND AS I HAVE MANY EMAILS, FROM PEOPLE THAT TELL ME THEY BOUGHT PUPPIES YEARS AGO, THAT DIED FROM THESE 2, AND MANY SINCE JULY,AFTER THE CHAPMANS PUPS HAD ALL DIED ----YOU WILL NEVER CONVINCE ME THESE 2 ARE INNOCENT, OR THAT THEY DONT KNOW THAT THERE PLACE HAS PARVOVIRUS. AND ALL PUPPIES THEY TAKE THERE WILL CATCH IT -----ANOTHER ISSUE OF THEM NOT GIVING A DAM ABOUT KILLING PUPPIES.Love Cinni Girl's Mom
Please Dont Buy Puppies From Parking Lots,Or At The Side Of The Road---Make Sure You Go To There Home --Call The Local Vet In The Sellers Area Check It Out.
ALso Check Your Local Spca Or Rescue Centers For Puppies Or Dogs.If You Dont Find What Your Looking For Please Do Research On Sellers Before Buying

The Benoits & Their Foils have been busy this week

Great Post at Dogkisser about Benoit & Bailey.

Things are ramping up for next week - on January 29th Gail Benoit and Dana Bailey are due back in court to hear whether or not they're going to be found guilty or innocent on their current charges of animal cruelty stemming from puppies that were seized from their house a couple years ago. This doesn't include the 4 cruelty charges they were just recently charged with regarding the puppies this past summer that they sold to Esther Smith and one other lady - the Chapman kennel puppies.

R. v. Bailey, 2002 NSSC 212 (CanLII)

Gail & Dana's court case from 2002 Animal cruelty charges is available on line...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

2002NSSC212 S.D. No: 0999

DANA BAILEY and GAIL BENOIT APPELLANTS

- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

HEARD: At Digby, Nova Scotia on June 5, 2002
Reflex Record (related decisions, legislation cited and decisions cited)

[1] Bailey and Benoit, who were jointly charged in an Information, bring this appeal from both conviction and sentence. They were convicted, after trial, of two offences alleging that

“At or near Marshalltown, in the County of Digby, Province of Nova Scotia did willfully cause unnecessary suffering to a dog by neglecting to provide adequate food and water, contrary to Section 11(1) of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act.”

and

“At or near Marshalltown, in the County of Digby, Province of Nova Scotia, did willfully cause unnecessary suffering to a dog by neglecting to provide it basic medical attention and adequate food and water, contrary to section 11(1) of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act.”

The major focus of the trial as reflected in the evidence was the condition of a female dog which had recently birthed and suckled thirteen pups. She was described by the veterinarian, Dr. Pothier, whose evidence Judge Prince clearly accepted, as “emaciated”. It was the sight of this dog in her immediate circumstances on a cold day in November that prompted Rebecca Longmire to report this animal “in a neglected state”. Indeed, among the opening words of the Crown Prosecutor in his final submissions, were “it’s clear...that the animals in this case...were not properly cared [sic] and not maintained.”

continue reading here :
http://canlii.com/eliisa/highlight.do?text=gail+benoit&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ns/nssc/doc/2002/2002nssc212/2002nssc212.html

Not A Gail Or Him Hater But There Victim Please Read:

KIJIJI Ad:

From The Heart!

WHERE DO ALL THE PUPPIES COME FROM???????? WE HAVE GONE FROM POODLES, SHEPHERDS, ROTTI'S, etc. to OODLES, MIX & MATCH!!!!!!!! yeah sometime acidents happen BUT when the MIX & MATCH are being sold for around the same price as a purebred then you have to wonder!!!!!! I check this site quit often and as a PET OWNER / PET BUSINESS OWNER (no i am not a breeder nor do i sell) I will be talking to my dogs and i say they talk back LOL but never has one of my dogs asked me to find them a STUD hmmmmmm....... I feel another batch of puppies being posted in the near future!!!!!!!! Being in a pet business i will get the odd call from someone looking for a puppy. So i will ask what kind (as i may be able to refer them to a responsable breeder) they will answer back any kind, again hmmmm!!!! DO SOME RESEARCH not any is suited for any people... Figure out what kind of dog will fit well with you, in doing this you will end up with a very special friend, and NOT another pup / dog looking for a new home because he got to big or stayed to small. There are many good breeders who have been breeding healthy dogs for many years and know what they are talking about and will even tell you if they feel that maybe their breed is not the type of dog that will fit into your life giving you time to rethink and saving another unwanted dog being posted......BECAUSE REALLY DOGS CAN'T TALK!!!!!!!! JUST DON'T TELL MY DOGS THAT, LOL

Youtube Video

Gail Benoit Is Too Sexy

Gail Responds to KIJIJI posters ..

This ad has been removed...
& to answer ur question Gail ....

The public will never give up until YOU give up the sales of dying dogs. Any one can gather a few friends to play references.. you have proven time and time again YOUR puppies ARE SICK!!!!!

There is not one VET in NS that will deal with you.. ............. so all the guarantees, vet check, needled, healthy ads are a complete lie! As a facebook member pointed out - Jan
20-2009

"At 11:20 pm, Joan's article online has had SEVEN THOUSAND THIRTEEN views!!!! And it is TOP of the Top Ten by more than 50% votes over the No. 2 article."

Gail you are by far the MOST INFAMOUS M{k}iller in the province of Nova Scotia! Well done Puppies R Dead.. really.


Halifax, NS View map
Date Listed: 21-Jan-09

DO YOU EVER GIVE IT UP????

IF THERE IS ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BUY A SWEET LITTLE PUPPY..THAT IS HEALTHY,,,AND FULL OF LOVE,,HOME RAISED..LET ME KNOW...

YOU CAN SEE FROM THE POSTINGS FROM THE AKA..HATERS..THAT I HAVE A FW PUPPIES LEFT...THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR THE PAST 4 WEEKS....

ANYONE INTERESTED IN PROOVING THESE SICKOOS WRONG..
LET ME KNOW..... I HAVE TONS AND TONS OF GREAT REF...

Puppies, Puppies Puppies - kijiji ad

We are prisoners of greed. Our owners supply pet store and sell us on internet sale sites. Our fur is matted, filthy,and sparse. Sometimes our teeth are rotten, our eyes have ulcers and we have 2 kinds of mange. Some of our mates have kennel cough, are prone to seizures. There will be many ploys to dupe intelligent people into buying us. Terms such as "cute teddy bear faces", and "home raised" will be used to sell us. My mother's ribs are visble and she has round worms. We are incubating disease. If you buy us we will bring you misery and possibly financial ruin. We are not provided with basic needs because that would mean less tax free profit.... Sometimes we are shipped without adequate food and water. http://www.puppiesrus.ca (go to)

letter from a shelter manager

Price: Please contact Ad ID: 100666177 Visits: 170
Address: Halifax, NS View map Date Listed: 19-Jan-09
A Letter from a Shelter Manager

I think our society needs a huge "Wake-up" call. As a shelter manager, I am going to share a little insight with you all...a view from the inside if you will.
First off, all of you breeders/sellers should be made to work in the "back" of an animal shelter for just one day. Maybe if you saw the life drain from a few sad, lost, confused eyes, you would change your mind about breeding and selling to people you don't even know.

That puppy you just sold will most likely end up in my shelter when it's not a cute little puppy anymore. So how would you feel if you knew that there's about a 90% chance that dog will never walk out of the shelter it is going to be dumped at? Purebred or not! About 50% of all of the dogs that are "owner surrenders" or "strays", that come into my shelter are purebred dogs.

The most common excuses I hear are; "We are moving and we can't take our dog (or cat)." Really? Where are you moving too that doesn't allow pets? Or they say "The dog got bigger than we thought it would". How big did you think a German Shepherd would get? "We don't have time for her". Really? I work a 10-12 hour day and still have time for my 6 dogs! "She's tearing up our yard". How about making her a part of your family? They always tell me "We just don't want to have to stress about finding a place for her we know she'll get adopted, she's a good dog".

Odds are your pet won't get adopted & how stressful do you think being in a shelter is? Well, let me tell you, your pet has 72 hours to find a new family from the moment you drop it off. Sometimes a little longer if the shelter isn't full and your dog manages to stay completely healthy. If it sniffles, it dies. Your pet will be confined to a small run/kennel in a room with about 25 other barking or crying animals. It will have to relieve itself where it eats and sleeps. It will be depressed and it will cry constantly for the family that abandoned it. If your pet is lucky, I will have enough volunteers in that day to take him/her for a walk. If I don't, your pet won't get any attention besides having a bowl of food slid under the kennel door and the waste sprayed out of its pen with a high-powered hose. If your dog is big, black or any of the "Bully" breeds (pit bull, rottie, mastiff, etc) it was pretty much dead when you walked it through the front door.
Those dogs just don't get adopted. It doesn't matter how 'sweet' or 'well behaved' they are.

If your dog doesn't get adopted within its 72 hours and the shelter is full, it will be destroyed. If the shelter isn't full and your dog is good enough, and of a desirable enough breed it may get a stay of execution, but not for long . Most dogs get very kennel protective after about a week and are destroyed for showing aggression. Even the sweetest dogs will turn in this environment. If your pet makes it over all of those hurdles chances are it will get kennel cough or an upper respiratory infection and will be destroyed because shelters just don't have the funds to pay for even a $100 treatment.

Here's a little euthanasia 101 for those of you that have never witnessed a perfectly healthy, scared animal being "put-down".

First, your pet will be taken from its kennel on a leash. They always look like they think they are going for a walk happy, wagging their tails. Until they get to "The Room", every one of them freaks out and puts on the brakes when we get to the door. It must smell like death or they can feel the sad souls that are left in there, it's strange, but it happens with every one of them. Your dog or cat will be restrained, held down by 1 or 2 vet techs depending on the size and how freaked out they are. Then a euthanasia tech or a vet will start the process. They will find a vein in the front leg and inject a lethal dose of the "pink stuff". Hopefully your pet doesn't panic from being restrained and jerk. I've seen the needles tear out of a leg and been covered with the resulting blood and been deafened by the yelps and screams. They all don't just "go to sleep", sometimes they spasm for a while, gasp for air and defecate on themselves.

When it all ends, your pets corpse will be stacked like firewood in a large freezer in the back with all of the other animals that were killed waiting to be picked up like garbage. What happens next? Cremated? Taken to the dump? Rendered into pet food? You'll never know and it probably won't even cross your mind. It was just an animal and you can always buy another one, right?

I hope that those of you that have read this are bawling your eyes out and can't get the pictures out of your head I deal with everyday on the way home from work.

I hate my job, I hate that it exists & I hate that it will always be there unless you people make some changes and realize that the lives you are affecting go much farther than the pets you dump at a shelter.

Between 9 and 11 MILLION animals die every year in shelters and only you can stop it. I do my best to save every life I can but rescues are always full, and there are more animals coming in everyday than there are homes.

My point to all of this DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER PETS DIE!

Hate me if you want to. The truth hurts and reality is what it is. I just hope I maybe changed one persons mind about breeding their dog, taking their loving pet to a shelter, or buying a dog. I hope that someone will walk into my shelter and say "I saw this and it made me want to adopt".

THAT WOULD MAKE IT WORTH IT

Protest for Jan.29/09

Wanted:

A Picture is worth a million words...


FEMALE DOG WANTED

Another Gail & Dana Ad on kijiji

"Looking for someone to take these off our hands.."

A few 'new' videos

A few 'new' videos - Global News coverage of Gail Benoit selling sick pups.

More Dead Dogs!! Crystal's Story

Gail Benoit Tells off Global News - Pat Snoyer's Story

Also please BEWARE: Gail & Dana are looking for pups.. .as posted on KIJIJI using email luv7up@ns.sympatico.ca !!!

Not masters of their domain

The below article from The Chronicle Herald. was sparked after Dogkisser blogged about buying up domains

The other day I thought to myself - "self", I thought - "do you think that Gail Benoit has gone and bought her name's domain name?", and I didn't know whether or not she'd think to do that - so I went and checked. And do you know what? It was available! - '
the webpage where I've been compiling all the internet information that I can find about her has a new domain name! It's now at http://gailbenoit.ca/ - isn't that fabulous?" Dogkisser' Joan Sinden

http://puppiesrus.ca/ is now pointed at the Facebook group dedicated to the cause.

Woman buys Internet names of puppy mill suspects
By JEFFREY SIMPSON Staff Reporter
Tue. Jan 20 - 7:10 AM

A Halifax woman has seized the Internet domain names of a Digby County couple facing animal cruelty charges to prevent people from buying their puppies.

Joan Sinden, who lives in Spryfield, last week bought http://gailbenoit.ca and http://danabailey.ca, which link to a site on her server with information about the activities of the husband-and-wife team with a controversial history of selling allegedly unhealthy dogs.

"I just want to educate people," Ms. Sinden, a self-described animal activist dedicated to stopping puppy mills and brokers, said in an interview Monday. "I thought someone should do it and I already had most of the information together already."

The Nova Scotia SPCA this month laid eight charges against Dana Bailey, 46, and his wife, Gail Ruth Benoit, 39, of Roxville for allegedly selling four dogs that died hours after their new owners received them last summer.

Mr. Bailey and Ms. Benoit each face four animal cruelty charges under the Criminal Code of Canada and four under the provincial Animal Cruelty Prevention Act. Autopsies showed the dogs died of parvovirus, a highly contagious canine illness often fatal in young dogs.

The couple are due in Digby provincial court on Jan. 29 on other charges stemming from the SPCA seizing several seriously ill puppies that were for sale.

Ms. Sinden said she hasn’t had any personal contact with Ms. Benoit and Mr. Bailey and doesn’t know anyone who has bought animals from them; she just wants to persuade the couple to earn a living another way.

"I have owned dogs that came from puppy mills and I have seen the effects of it," Ms. Sinden said. "I see the fact that their teeth are rotten and they have no hair and that they’ve had a really shitty life and I don’t think it’s right for animals to have to live like that.

"While they’re alive, they should have a certain quality of life, just like humans have a certain quality of life. I don’t think that animals are any different than us."

Her website links to information about parvovirus and news clips of the couple on YouTube, including a hip hop-style montage.

Mr. Bailey said he isn’t responsible for the deaths of any dogs and doesn’t plan to check out Ms. Sinden’s website.

"There are so many websites out there now, another one ain’t gonna hurt one bit," he said. "I’m not one bit concerned."

Mr. Bailey said he and Ms. Benoit, who declined to comment for this story, are still selling dogs and have no plans to stop.

"We’ve got proof of what the dogs died from but we’re not bringing it out until after the SPCA goes through with some more so-called charges — and then we’re going to show what the dogs died from," Mr. Bailey said.

"I have video of what the dogs died from."

David Tidswell, 21, of Halifax, said he recently found an ad of Ms. Benoit’s on the classified website kijiji.ca offering a purebred chihuahua for $300. He said he was selling his computer at the same time and struck a deal to make a trade.

They met at an Esso gas station parking lot in Bridgetown on Jan. 3 at about 10 p.m. After getting the dog home, Mr. Tidswell said, he did some research on the Internet and learned about Ms. Benoit’s alleged selling practices. A few days later, the dog became ill and died, he said.

Chronicle Herald 'She said the dog was fine'

'She said the dog was fine'

Halifax man says accused puppy mill owner traded him a sick chihuahua

By AMY SMITH Provincial Reporter
Wed. Jan 14 - 5:39 AM

David Tidswell says he didn’t see the warning signs when he arranged to pick up his new chihuahua at a Valley gas station earlier this month.

Ten days later, the dog, which he named Keelie, was dead.

Now the Halifax man wants to warn people about the woman he says traded him the dog for a desktop computer.

Mr. Tidswell, 21, said it was after he brought the dog home that he learned the woman he got the animal from is facing four animal cruelty charges under the Criminal Code of Canada and four under the provincial Animal Cruelty Prevention Act.

The Nova Scotia SPCA laid charges last week against Gail Ruth Benoit, 39, and her husband Dana Bailey, 46, of Roxville, Digby County, who sold four dogs that died hours after their new owners received them last summer.

The couple is due in Digby provincial court on Jan. 29 on other charges stemming from an SPCA seizure of several seriously ill puppies that were for sale.

Mr. Tidswell said he found an ad on the classified website kijiji.ca, offering a purebred chihuahua for $300. He said he was selling his computer at the same time and asked the dog seller if she was willing to make a trade.

When she agreed, he said they arranged to meet at an Esso gas station parking lot in Bridgetown on Jan. 3 at about 10 p.m.

Mr. Tidswell said in an interview Tuesday evening that he should have been more wary.

"The signs weren’t clicking in," he said. "I was in excitement mode. I was getting a dog."

Once he got the dog home, Mr. Tidswell said he did some research on the Internet. It was then, he said, that he realized he had bought the dog from Ms. Benoit.

He said he called and asked her if the dog was healthy.

"She said the dog was fine," he said. "It was probably nervous and whatnot. And the dog had just had a litter of puppies, apparently."

But two or three days later, Mr. Tidswell said, Keelie started getting sick. He said the dog became lethargic, her eyes were bloodshot and had mucus in them, and her breathing was rough. Soon, the dog was vomiting and had diarrhea and dark urine, he said.

Mr. Tidswell, who said he works from home but did not want to say what he does for a living, said he didn’t take the dog to the vet because he was waiting for his paycheque to come in.

He said that on Monday night, he gave her a bath, wrapped her in a blanket and set her on the couch. When he returned, Mr. Tidswell said, the dog was dead.

Mr. Tidswell said he called the SPCA to lay a complaint against Ms. Benoit but was told the agency couldn’t do anything because he had already disposed of the dog’s body. He said he also called Ms. Benoit on Tuesday morning.

When reached by phone Tuesday evening, Mr. Bailey refused to comment on the allegations. However, he told CTV News there was nothing wrong with the dog.

"The dog was eating good here. The dog just had pups," Mr. Bailey said.

"I told him to send more confirmation of the dog dying and he can have his computer back," Mr. Bailey said.

( asmith@herald.ca)

Keelie- by Mr. Tidswell

Topic: keelie

Everyone is turning this whole situation involving KEELIE (my deseased pup) around and pointing fingers at me! By everyone i mean the press , dog breeders, strangers, PEOPLE I THOUGHT WERE MY FRIENDS!

I DIDNT EVEN WANT TO DO ALL THIS. I DIDNT WANT MY FACE ALL OVER THE NEWS. IN NEWS PAPERS AND ON WEB SITES. NOW IM THE MAIN TOPIC OF EVERY BLOG, WEB PAGE, AND CONVERSATION!

I MET SOME REALLY NICE PEOPLE AND BECAME FRIENDS WITH THEM THROUGH THIS REALLY HARD TIME AND THEY ASSISTED ME DURING EVERY INTERVIEW I DID.

I DID NOT EVEN WANT TO DO THIS. I KNEW IT WOULD GET AROUND QUICKLY AND EVERYONE WOULD HEAR ABOUT THIS. I DIDNT WANT ALL THE ATTENTION. BUT I TOOK A DEEP BREATH AND AGREED TO DO THIS FOR THE LOVE OF MY DOG KEELIE AND ALL THE OTHER PUPPIES AND OTHER ANIMALS OUT THERE THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE SAME THING KEELIE HAD TO GO THOROUGH . ALONG WITH ALL THE HEART BREAK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAD TO SUFFER ALONG SIDE MYSELF.

MY HEART IS IN PIECES AND HAS BEEN SINCE KEELIE FIRST GOT ILL.0

I COULDNT AFFORD TO TAKE HER TO THE VET RIGHT AT THAT TIME. I TRIED TO BORROW MONEY AND I CALLED NUMEROUS VET OFFICES. NO ONE WOULD TAKE HER IN WITH OUT PAYMENT.

I CONTACTED AS MANY PEOPLE AS I COULD THINK OF FOR TIPS TO KEEP HER WELL UNTIL I COULD FIND A WAY TO GET HER LOOK AFTER. BUT THIS ALL HAPPEND SO QUICKLY. AND THE NEXT THING I KNEW SHE WAS GONE.

I PANICKED WHEN I LOST HER. I WAS SO UPSET AND WAS NOT THINKING STRIGHT. I CONTACTED A CLOSE FRIEND AND HAD THEM TAKE HER OUT OF THE HOUSE. I COULDNT TAKE LOOKING AT HER. I WAS STANDING OVER HER LIFELESS BODY . SHE WAS SO HELPLESS. THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO. OR AT LEAST I DIDNT THINK THERE WAS. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO BURY HER BUT THE GROUND WAS FROZEN AND I PERSONALLY DONT KNOW ANYONE WITH A BACK HOE! SO IT WAS MY ONLY OPTION/
DONT GET ME WRONG. IF I WOULD HAVE BEEN THINKING STRIGHT I WOULD HAVE CALLED THE SPCA AND REPORTED IT AS SOON AS THIS HAPPEND. BUT AS I SAID. I PANICKED. AND COULD BARE TO SEE HER LITTLE SAD FACE. SHE WAS SO BEAUTIFUL. I WAS SO HAPPY WHEN I FIRST HELD HER. IT WAS AN INSTANT CONNECTION EVEN THO SHE WAS SCARED.. I KNEW SHE WOULD COME AROUND EVENTUALLY. AND WE WOULD GROW TO BE THE BEST OF BUDS.

I ONLY HAD THE CHANCE TO WALK MY BABY 3 TIMES. 3 TIMES!!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT FEELS!

i MISS HER ENDLESS LESS AND I HURT FROM THE BOTTEM OF MY HEART. BUT I DID WHAT I THOUGHT COULD HAVE MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE EYES OF ANIMAL LOVERS LIKE ME! TO SAVE LITTLE CHILDREN FROM HAVING TO FEEL WHAT I AND MANY OTHER HAVE.

I PUT MY FACE ALL OVER THE MEDIA AND INTERNET FOR A GOOD CAUSE! I DID THIS TO MAKE PEOPLE REALIZE THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO BUY ANY ANIMAL! KNOW WHO YOUR BUYING FROM! GET INFORMATION! ASK QUESTIONS!!!!! AND NEVER EVER EVER!!! BUY FROM THE BACK SEAT OF A CAR!

MY STORY WAS NOT WRITTEN NOR VIEWED THE WAY I WANTED IT TO BE! INSTEAD IT CAUSED ME EVEN MORE PAIN. I HAVE HATE MAIL FROM VIEWERS AND BLOGERS TELLING ME IM TO BLAME! IM A BAD PERSON! SHAME ON ME!!!

THIS IS NOT WHAT I WANTED!

I LOVED MY BABY GIRL VERY MUCH AND DID WHAT I COULD FOR HER. AND I REALLY WANTED EVERYONE TO KNOW THIS.

PLEASE EVERYONE READ BETWEEN THE LINES!!!! THESE TWO "DANA AND GAIL" NEED TO BE STOPED! THEY ARE DOING THIS TO SO MANY PEOPLE AND ANIMALS! ITS SICKING! I CANT EVEN TYPE RIGHT NOW MY KEYBOARD IS SO FULL OF TEARS. PLEASE PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR READING AND DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES THAT I HAVE! IM PLEADING TO YOU!


I WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU KEELIE. YOU WERE MY ANGEL SENT HERE TO HELP US PUT AN END TO ALL OF THIS MAYHAM. THEY WILL BE STOPPED BABY GIRL. DONT YOU WORRIE. RIP KEELIE

Ads by Gail/Dana are still 'alive'

Ad ID: 9485402

I am looking for just the right home for..kayoss..he is a very lovable litttle boy..His mom is a german shepherd and his dad is a german shepherd x husky..This little boy is awaiting a family to love him.He is very well mannerd, and very smart, he is also crate trained,leash trained,as well he started potty training.."and is doing well "** price is not the issue..I want him to have nice home ** if you think you have the best home for him..I would love to hear from you :)