OSPCA threatened Marineland’s ‘extinction’: Lawsuit

Marineland’s $21-million lawsuit against the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) is the result of “injuries and damages, including special damages” suffered as a result of the animal welfare organization’s animal cruelty charges laid against the park.

In a statement of claim obtained by Postmedia this week, Marineland accuses the OSPCA of “malice” towards the park, bowing to pressure from the “animal activist community” to lay animal cruelty charges in January and last November in order to please its donors.

“In addition, through its press releases and public statements … the OSPCA has threatened Marineland with effective extinction,” says the 34-page statement of claim, filed on Oct. 24 in St. Catharines.

The day after the statement was filed, Marineland offered no comment on the lawsuit.

The OSPCA said it “vehemently denies all of the allegations,” but would not comment further.

Marineland continued to decline comment when contacted about the statement of claim Wednesday.

The OSPCA said it will “defend itself” against the lawsuit, adding Marineland will continue to be routinely inspected: “Marineland remains part of the voluntary zoo registry. All facilities that are part of the program agree to participate in one announced and one unannounced inspection each year.

“No further comment can be made at this time as the matter is being referred to counsel and is before the courts.”

Marineland is seeking $20 million in damages and $1 million in punitive damages in light of the 11 animal cruelty charges laid by the OSPCA, which were subsequently dropped by the Crown in Provincial Offences Court in Niagara Falls on Aug. 10. In November 2016 the OSPCA said it was responding to “concerns” by having a veterinarian inspect the park.

Five charges of animal cruelty were laid, relating to Marineland’s bears, guinea hens and one peacock. Two months later, six more charges were laid, involving elk, red deer and fallow deer.

Marineland disputed the charges, saying they stemmed from a former employee who was fired for poor performance.

In its statement of claim, Marineland says the charges were laid partly for “the advancement of fundraising and funding goals of the OSPCA,” and “to avoid negative impact to fundraising from animal activists and the public,” as well as to avoid online criticism.

Marineland said the OSPCA was being “lobbied” by activists to take some sort of action against the park: “The effect on fundraising by the OSPCA as a consequence of not laying charges against Marineland was negative, the full extent of which is known only to the OSPCA.”

The statement also claims former Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services employee Mark Zimmerman was hired by activist groups ZooCheck, Animal Alliance of Canada and Last Chance for Animals to “investigate” the OSPCA in order to prompt charges against the park.

The 11 animal cruelty charges were then “prominently highlighted by activists seeking to ban the captivity of all whales and close Marineland.”

By not dropping charges it deemed “without any grounds or reasonable prospect of conviction,” Marineland accuses the OSPCA of “maximizing harm” to its business and reputation during the 2017 summer season.

Eight of the charges were dropped by the Crown because there was no “reasonable prospect” of conviction, while the remaining three were deemed “not in the public’s interest” to pursue.

Afterwards, an OSPCA spokeswoman said the organization was “extremely disappointed” in the decision. A surprise inspection of Marineland followed a week later, in which the OSPCA said it found “11 items requiring action” involving veterinarians. Marineland issued a conflicting press releases saying there were was no signs of abuse or neglect among its animals.

The statement concludes that the OSPCA’s actions were “recklessly indifferent” to the probability of “injury” to Marineland.

“The OSPCA has acted in a premeditated and calculated manner and has deliberately, flagrantly and callously disregarded Marineland’s rights, and as such, is liable for punitive damages.”

Since 2012, Marineland has filed nine other lawsuits against activists, former employees and the media. All are still before the courts.