A Voice for the Voiceless
The tides might be changing for animals in a court of law here in Ontario.
When Sandra Schnurr dropped into a Home Depot store in 2018, she had no idea that it would shape her life for the next year, putting her on the path of trying to represent mice and rats in court.
The retired lawyer is the founder and spokesperson for the not-for-profit animal welfare advocacy organization, Canadians for Animal Protection.
Schnurr was looking for a solution to the ant problem she was having in her home when she stumbled upon something that shocked her — rodent glue traps — described by animal rights group PETA as “one of the cruelest methods of killing animals that exists today.”
The discovery of the sale of glue traps piqued Shnurr’s interest enough that she decided to check if other stores were also selling the traps. She found that five other retail giants were carrying the glue traps.
“I thought these things had been outlawed” Schnurr said.
While glue traps are not illegal, upon doing some research Schnurr discovered that there have been several campaigns in the past to outlaw the traps.
“The animal simply walks onto the glue trap and finds itself stuck. It can’t move whatever limb or appendage it placed on the trap,” Schnurr said, “sometimes what happens is, as it struggles, it’s mouth and nose will become mired in the adhesive and it will suffocate.”
If the animals don’t suffocate, they eventually die of starvation, dehydration or exhaustion, and their deaths can be prolonged, in some cases taking several days.
Trying to take a stand
In July of 2019, Schnurr filed a notice of application against the five retailers selling glue traps. She sought to ban Canadian Tire, Home Depot, Home Hardware, Walmart and Lowes from selling glue traps, arguing that the Criminal Code prohibits causing unnecessary suffering to animals.
But defending the rights of animals in court is no simple task.
Camille Labchuk, a lawyer, and the Executive Director of Animal Justice, an organization focused on legal rights of animals across Canada, says that animal rights lawyers face a litany of issues when it comes to covering cases involving animals, as animals do not qualify for the same rights under the law that people do.
“It’s a major challenge because animals don’t have what I would call ‘capital R rights’ that are easily enforceable in the same way humans do,” Labchuk said, “animals have protection under the law…but it can be very challenging for animals to enforce those laws on their own.”
Since animals can not enforce their own rights, and defending them in court can be difficult, this case may be a beacon of hope for other activists out there, even though it did not have the outcome Schnurr and other activists were hoping for.
On October 10th, the bid was dismissed by Superior Court Justice Lorne Sossin on the grounds that it did not meet the threshold for public standing.
Although dismissed, it was done so without prejudice, leaving the door open to bring the case back to court once outside options are exhausted.
Sossin suggested that before coming to civil court Schnurr should have first tried laying a criminal charge with the police, filing a private prosecution, or go to the OSPCA and launch a complaint with them.
“He seemed to imply that if we pursue those avenues, and if we exhaust those possibilities without any success, then perhaps we can come back to court and continue with this application after all,” Schnurr said.
While glue traps were the catalyst for Schnurr’s bid, the case speaks to a much larger issue of representation of animals in courts.
A brighter future for animal representation
“The practical realities of lawyering for animals on the ground are not always obvious,” said Labchuck, “what a lot of it comes down to is just a disparity of resources.”
Often animal advocates are going up against large corporations who have a seemingly endless stream of money to put into cases, whereas animal advocates only have the money they can raise on their own.
But not all hope is lost. This judgment in the Superior Court of Ontario is not a dead-end for animal rights activists — this may actually just be the beginning.
“I think we’re going to see more and more cases, and I think we’re going to eventually follow the example that’s been set in some other countries, where animal advocates, are seeking to apply traditional human rights to animals,” Schnurr said.
She also believes that case already has set a new precedent when it comes to animal rights cases in Canada, even though the court did not agree that they passed the threshold test to grant them standing to speak for animals in court.
“Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, I think the most important thing is that we’ve been successful in obtaining a very significant amount of media coverage and bringing this matter to the public’s attention,” Schnurr said.
Now this case can be viewed as a study of whether animals should be able to have their interests represented in the courts, and bringing more public awareness to this issue.
“The fact is that all animals…all of them have very limited rights,” Schnurr said, “the few rights that animals have, they have very little or no way to enforce them.”
Moving beyond just mice and rats and glue traps, this is a case that may be the spark that activists and advocates need to continue their fight for the rights of animals in courts.
“The legal issue that’s central to our case is whether someone can go to court on an animal's behalf. Even though the judge did not grant us this right, at least not so far, I believe that progress is being made and that the public is becoming more aware of this problem.” Schnurr said.
While Schnurr does not know for sure where to go from here, it’s quite clear that the ruling has not dampened her spirits, as she looks towards a future where animals can have their day in court.
