I hope you’re sitting down for this, my friends.

See the picture below? That’s Mel, a couple of months after she arrived in our care. 

Yup, I said AFTER. So what you’re looking at is what her body looked like after two months of excellent nutrition, rest, and a home where she wasn’t called an a—hole.

She was starved by her previous “caretaker” and removed by the NB SPCA in March 2024, as a result of animal cruelty, along with Merlin, Beatrice, Kate (her goat friends), a donkey, three ponies, and two pigs.

The accused in this case was charged with two counts under the SPCA Act and two counts under the Criminal Code of Canada for failure to provide food, water, shelter or care.

The four goats, donkey, three ponies, and two pigs were supposed to get their day in court on November 12th and 13th, but we found out today that the matter was settled on October 30th with no trial.

I (Jamie) was planning to attend the proceedings to see firsthand the evidence that would be presented—and (hopefully) witness her being convinced of failing the animals in her care so severely, including those who didn’t make it.

Instead, it was quietly settled without a public trial, the evidence was never presented in court, and the public won’t know the full extent of what these animals endured or how little accountability followed.

What we did find out from the courts is that she was convicted, and all she got was one condition:

No chickens or “livestock” in her care for 5 years.

If Merlin, Mel, Kate, and Bea live a long life despite the cruelty they endured, we’ll still be caring for them when she’s allowed to get more!

 That single condition (no chickens/”livestock” for 5 years) suggests the accused was convicted summarily (a lower-level conviction) and received a probation order or conditional sentence.

That single condition:

• Does not include all animals, so she can still legally have dogs, cats, etc.
• Does not prevent her from living on or working at a property where animals are present, unless the probation specifically says otherwise (which is rare).
• Does not impose jail time or fines.
• Doesn’t appear on a public registry.  Canada has no centralized database for people convicted of animal cruelty, meaning there’s no way for rescues, sanctuaries, or adopters to know about her restriction.

In short, she was convicted but received only a limited, temporary prohibition. It’s legally a slap on the wrist — it acknowledges guilt without ensuring real protection for animals in the long term.

I’m not naive enough to be surprised by this. The fact that she was convinced is more justice than so many victims (human and non-human animals) receive. 

However, it’s still incredibly frustrating and disappointing to have yet another act of cruelty be discreetly settled, and the perpetrator boasting publicly about how she’s starting “an incredible new chapter” and is “stepping into it stronger than ever.”  

She can say that because she wasn’t held accountable for her actions in any meaningful way.

This is another example of why we can’t wait around when animals need help.

Mel and her friends needed desperate help over a year and a half ago. After they arrived, while we worked on their rotted hooves, helped them gain back weight and muscle, and called our vet numerous times, including all those emergency calls for Merlin when his high fevers wouldn’t break easily, his massive parasite load kept him feable, and he fought hard to beat pneumonia, the accused started her “new chapter” with no public remorse.

The animals deserved so much more than having to fight for their lives due to the actions of the convicted.

The one bright spot is that Mel and her friends are happy here, living their best sanctuary life, and have no idea that they will never receive adequate justice for what they endured.