Skip to content

FOI requester insists Sudbury selling or giving away animals for research experiments

But when she appeals to privacy commission, adjudicator tells her she can't insist on seeing records that don't exist
Manitoba Dog Rescue 1
(Supplied)

An unnamed animal rights activist in Greater Sudbury who is convinced the city has sold or donated pets from its shelter for research experiments has lost a legal bid to force the city to hand over records detailing the transactions.

That's because there's no evidence the records exist, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission has ruled, or that the city ever engaged in the practice. 

City spokesperson Shannon Dowling said Thursday the city has never sold or handed any animals over for research experiments. 

Specifically, the FOI requester wanted information from the last five years detailing:

  • The number of animals to enter each shelter;
  • The number of animals returned or claimed by owner;
  • The number of animals adopted;
  • The number of animals euthanized and the reason why — medical or behavioural;
  • The number of animals — if any — sold or gifted to a research facility or a similar program; and,
  • The number of animals gifted or sold to research facilities returned afterwards to the shelter for adoption, compared to the number euthanized.

“Please provide all requests from research facilities asking for animals from each shelter — including any emails and or any other correspondence relating to animals for research,” the FOI read.

In response, the city provided much of the information, except for details available publicly on its website. But it told the requester it had no records relating to animals being given or sold for experiments, and charged her $159 for search time and copying fees.

She appealed the decision, arguing the fee was too high, that the information on the city's website was inaccurate, and that she couldn't locate some of information the city said was publicly available.

“The appellant also stated that she believed more records should exist relating to animals being sent to research facilities, which she believes, would include animals that were neutered at a research facility,” the court transcript says.

After mediation, the city dropped the fees to $78.40 and provided links and hard copies of the public information the FOI requester couldn't locate.

At that point, the woman questioned why intake reports weren't available from 2012-2015 detailing the reasons why an animal was euthanized. At the time, animal control was handled by a private contractor hired by the city. The city took over responsibility in fall 2016.

“She further stated that more records about why animals were euthanized and the number of animals that were neutered in a research facility should exist,” the transcript says. 

The city responded it didn't have control of those records, “and that the appellant should speak directly to the former animal control service provider about their records.” 

The detailed intake reports began when the city took over, the transcript says, and the previous service provider wasn't required to file them.

However, the requester was given reports from 2012-2016 that detailed how many animals were “euthanized, although they do not have the reasons specified,” as the woman was asking.

At that point, the case went from mediation to a formal inquiry, and the adjudicator directed the city to make a formal request for those records from the former animal control provider.

The woman also questioned how extensive the search for the records really was, and argued the search didn't include information that was “sent off site for storage.”

In its decision, the commission ruled that simply insisting records must exist isn't enough, there must be reasonable grounds to believe they do. And the FOI legislation requires municipalities to make a “reasonable” effort to locate documents, not an absolute exhaustive search.

“I am satisfied that the city undertook a comprehensive and expansive electronic and physical search for responsive records, including a review of the physical records that were located in the filing cabinet located in the office of the current city’s bylaw co-ordinator,” wrote adjudicator Steven Faughan. “There is simply no evidence before me that indicates that any records were actually sent off-site for storage.” 

Read the full transcript here.