NOTICE OF ACTION

Introduction

Several dog related forums, blogs, and mailing lists on the world wide web (mostly in Canada, the US, and the UK) have been served with a NOTICE OF ACTION dated Friday, September 30th 2005 concerning a puppy mill located close to Shawville Québec (near Ottawa Ontario), with one of those being mine.

  Paws R Us Puppy Mill - Photos  

Update July 20th 2006:

The Paws R Us Puppy Mill has served me with a
2nd NOTICE OF ACTION

Unlike in the 1st Notice of Action, they have now had the audacity to include other family members in the 2nd Notice of Action. Family members who know nothing about this stuff!

Like the first time, I have no intention of removing anything from my website now or ever!

Why now? Has the legal action being taken against Lorie proved a dead end for the Paws R Us legal beagles running amuck in the Ontario courts?

Everything posted in response to the first Notice of Action is what is found to be libelous in the 2nd Notice of Action, with all this having been posted online over 10 months ago (including the fairy tale). Why Paws R Us and their lawyer Luc Barrick having received my response and knowing of all this content for all these last 10 months, have only now decided to respond with yet another Notice of Action to my responses to the first Notice of Action, when they took no Action in the first Notice of Action? This is what is something of a real puppy mill mystery?

They seem to have particularly not appreciated the charming old Catbark Fairy Tale.

A fairy tale with a image of 2 witches being heard in the Superior Court of Justice of Nothing!?!

Lawyers, fairy tales, and images of dogs in cages being stabbed by the "Fleur de Lys" superimposed upon a facsimilie of the Quebec flag should make for a rather interesting court case, which should happily drag on for years and years.

They also declare that the "Eye witness Account by Carey" is defamatory. How could a 'Eye witness Account' ever be considered as defamatory??

It was my quoting this eyewitness account on my website mailing list back in February 2005 that started all these Libel Notices of Action to fly about hither and yon. The first Notice of Action targeting me specifically for having posted this TRUE eyewitness account, and as you can see it remains posted and will continue to do so.

I would be appreciative if everyone could give this 2nd Notice of Action as much publicity as we all did provide in response to the 1st Notice of Action.

Hopefully with Paws R Us providing us with yet another opportunity for even more publicity concerning their notorious puppy mill, others like Stacey Leroux, Colette Leger, and Lorie will avoid suffering the pain and torment that they are and have suffered as a result of having bought a puppy from this puppy mill.

Clearly there is not much point in responding to this Law Firm, seeing that they ignore all reponses, wait 10 months and then respond with yet another Notice of Action in response to the responses posted on the previous Notice of Action. They certainly must be crazy, or maybe it is that I just do not simply and clearly understand their convoluted thought processes and endless legal gobbledygook?

Please feel free to repost anything and everything posted here (on my website - including all images) across the world wide web, all forums, blogs, or anywhere else, and/or notify any and everyone.

When you visit this law firms website you are greeted with the slogan:

QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES
WITH NO SURPRISES

Could anything be more far removed from the truth?

Isn't it surprising that a Quality Legal Service would serve someone with basically the same Notice of Action twice in less than a year without first verifying all the facts about who exactly they are representing in the courts of Ontario?!

For example this quality law firm of untarnished veracity declares this as being defamatory in their 2nd Notice of Action against me:

"This law firm seems to place great importance on the fact that their puppy mill clients raise, breed and sell breeds of dogs which are registered with the
North American Purebred Dog Registry!"

In the 1st Notice of Action right at the start:

"We are Solicitors for Charlene Labombard and Nicole Labombard, owners of Paws R Us Kennel located at R.R. #2, Shawville, Québec, J0X 2Y0. Our clients raise, breed and sell breeds of dogs which are registered with the North American Purebred Dog Registry."

It would seem from the above that they do indeed place great importance "that their puppy mill clients raise, breed and sell breeds of dogs which are registered with the North American Purebred Dog Registry!"

Government of Canada (in response to my inquiries):

"It is unlawful to sell or promote any dog as purebred unless it has a valid registration certificate issued by a breed association recognized under the Animal Pedigree Act of Canada. The North American Purebred Dog Registry is not a valid registration certificate recognized by the government of Canada. Anyone selling a dog or dogs within Canada, or knowingly aiding and abetting anyone who does so is doing so unlawfully."

This law firm is supporting a puppy mill that openly flouts the laws of Canada, and in so doing are themselves acting unlawfully (one could argue that they are 'aiding and abetting' - this also being true of the newspapers who post the 'Paws R Us NAPDR' classifieds)??

This is hardly the behavior you'd expect from a quality legal service who apparently haven't yet bothered to read the Animal Pedigree Act of Canada!?!

sancho69 writes here:

"They boast that they are a commercial business that provides pure bred pets at low quality prices to loving homes. They feel that by saying this they will be exempt from the expectations of impeccable dogs. They are not producing quality dogs, but quantity of dogs. The CKC and AKC do not recognize their establishment as a breeder of purebred dogs as they produce too many breeds. Should this not send up a flag of some sort? The NAPDR that they use mails them an excess of certificates that are not verified by the lineage to determine if the dog should deemed a purebred. The family simply puts the “supposed” mother and fathers name on the certificate and breed type."

I've now had a libel lawyer look at both the Notice of Action and my website:

"When put in context with the wealth of supporting evidence there is nothing written or displayed within the website pages listed that can in my opinion not be considered as merely fair comment."

Putting things in context is the key here!

Clearly this law firm has done nothing more here than have a paralegal cherry pick through my web site for anything and everything that at first glance might be deemed as defamatory and libelous (there being no apparent research or verification of any of the facts or claims in dispute). However, when you put these cherry picked quotes back in context the exact opposite is often proved.

Take this cherry picked item in the Notice of Action:

"[...] Québec puppy mill, which if it were located in Ontario would have been shut down years ago, and the owners fined $60,000 [...]"

Now put back in context you see that I am quoting the Ontario Humane Society who wrote this in reply to a e-mail I sent them:

"It is rather ironic that Ontario courts and lawyers are being used to take action on behalf of a Québec puppy mill, which if it were located in Ontario would have been shut down years ago, and the owners fined $60,000 (according to the Ontario Humane Society who has countless anecdotal complaints concerning this puppy mill from residents living in Eastern Ontario - notably the Ottawa area)!"

Did the law firm contact the Ontario Humane Society, and do any sort of verification to refute this claim? How can what a Ontario Humane Society Inspector told me in a email be considered as a libelous and defamatory comment by myself? Myself, I have contacted every Humane Society in Eastern Ontario and all of Quebec, countless Animal Rescues, and... I rather doubt that the law firm has done the same?? I just have to mention the words Paws R Us, and I get a immediate reaction every time! Everyone knows exactly which puppy mill I am referring to without my having to explain anything any further! Certainly no person has ever disputed my use of the words puppy mill when asking about this puppy mill ever.

As to finding images which can be considered as political cartoons (mine are considered as such) as libelous and defamatory I am told is next to impossible to prove!?!

This whole lawsuit resolves around the definition of what is a puppy mill!

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

puppy mill
One entry found for puppy mill.
Main Entry: puppy mill
Function: noun
: a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers

Luc E. Barrick writes:

Our clients raise, breed and sell over 10 different breeds of dogs. They are one of the largest kennel in Quebec.

(Why would he say kennel instead of kennels?)

Clearly this qualifies his clients as operating one of the largest puppy mills in Quebec (in his own words) as defined by this world renowned Dictionary!

So, how can my calling his clients the Paws R Us Puppy Mill a puppy mill ever be considered as libelous in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario?

Interesting how Luc has removed all mention of purebred and the North American Purebred Dog Registry from this 2nd Notice of Action!

Clearly by doing so he has indicated to one and all that his clients were operating an illegal dog breeding operation better known as a
!!PUPPY MILL!!

Click here to see full size image

It will certainly be interesting to see how Barrick Poulsen LLB can wiggle around yet another Eye Witness Account?

Another eye witness account from which they cherry picked allegedly defamatory items to use against me in their 2nd Notice of Action, even though they did not include the url address of this Bulletin Board forum in their list of defamatory web pages!?

Must have been saving this BB forum for their 3rd Notice of Action??

Having cherry picked from this eye witness account means it can be heard in full in court, as can Carey's Eye Witness Account!

I've also now made a formal complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada about this law firm endlessly harassing me with Notices of Action on the same website content (twice in less than a year), which results in nothing ever happening!

See forum for further commentary.

Another listed recipient of the Notice of Action has provided me with a
PDF version of a Notice of Action they received dated August 3rd.

As you can see this is an exact copy of the Notice of Action I received except for the lawyer who signed, and a few more names being added to the recipient list. This August 3rd Notice of Action includes 4 listed recipient names that also appear on my September 30th Notice of Action?

This person also says that they did not get the second Notice of Action that had them listed in it yet again? They were very surprised to say the least... :-(

This certainly sounds like it might be a unethical act of deception? Why include the names of 4 recipients in the September 30th Notice of Action, when they had already been notified in the August 3rd Notice of Action? How many Notice of Actions have there been so far?

Another recipient informs me that this law firm might just be on a 'Fishing Expedition', with 2 others saying that this law firm might be engaged in nothing more than 'Legal Thugery'?

I am deeply saddened to report that this legal thugery has resulted in one of the forums listed being closed, a lively interesting forum that was of great interest to the many of us who love dogs. Dogs who are valued members of our families, and who we care about greatly.

There is also this niggling question of why a puppy mill in Québec would have a claim heard in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario using a Ontario Law Firm (30 or so Notices of Action so far, with another action in a Ontario small claims court)? It is alleged that the owners of this puppy mill are or were Ontario residents (Sudbury?), which might explain this (since Ontario's tough new laws most Ontario puppy mills have now moved to Québec)? It is rather ironic that Ontario courts and lawyers are being used to take action on behalf of a Québec puppy mill, which if it were located in Ontario would have been shut down years ago, and the owners fined $60,000 (according to the Ontario Humane Society who has countless anecdotal complaints concerning this puppy mill from residents living in Eastern Ontario - notably the Ottawa area)!

If a Quebec puppy mill can use Ontario lawyers and Ontario courts, then surely Ontario humane societies can do the same? That is take action against any and all Quebec puppy mills using Ontario's tough new legislation, and especially against this Paws R Us puppy mill who is seeking to have everyone and anyone who complains about it to appear in the apparently Ontario puppy mill friendly courts? Are the Quebec courts less puppy mill friendly or what (Ontario courts under used and empty most of the time, where as Quebec courts are crowded and overbooked)??

Libel and Slander Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER L.12

"There are various defences to a claim that someone has been defamed. For instance, there is the defence that what has been said is a fair and accurate statement or report."

I will show in my initial reply and its introduction that what I said about the Paws R Us puppy mill in this message was and is a fair and accurate statement or report! According to this Notice of Action, my ONLY alleged act of defamation in this message was to call Paws R Us a puppy mill?

I found this Notice of Action in my Spam folder! This makes me wonder about the legality of sending Notices of Action by email only, and not knowing the names or home addresses of people being given this notice. What proof do they have that these notices were even received?

The above just deals with the Notice of Action. To see my initial reply and pawsitive comments as to the substance of this notice, which is the Paws R Us puppy mill please proceed to page 2.

Notice of Action

NOTICE OF ACTION

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Defamation on Websites

Written Notice Pursuant To
The Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L.12

TAKE THIS LETTER AS WRITTEN NOTICE pursuant to section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act of Ontario that you have defamed our client, Paws R Us Kennel by allowing libelous statements to be published on your website(s) identifying our client including false and malicious statements with a view to causing our client damage.

Introduction

We are Solicitors for Charlene Labombard and Nicole Labombard, owners of Paws R Us Kennel located at R.R. #2, Shawville, Québec, J0X 2Y0. Our clients raise, breed and sell breeds of dogs which are registered with the North American Purebred Dog Registry. The Kennel is a commercial business. The proprietors take care of the dogs and have them routinely checked by a veterinarian. They sell the dogs under a contract with a guarantee. They advertise and have visitors to the kennel. They have a website and advertise in Canada and elsewhere. They have been in business for over 10 years.

Defamation

You have allowed defamatory comments to be published on your website which falsely and maliciously libel our client, as follows:

• they are selling puppies with a disease and need to be closed
• they are a puppymill
• these scumbags have been getting away with this WAY too long
• the SPCA has visited them following complaints, but they give notice of their visit and this gives the millers time to clean up a bit and make it look as though the dogs are not being abused.
• it will be a wonderful day when these millers are shutdown and not allowed to make their living from the suffering of animals.
• I know how hard getting these low life scum shut down can be. I have written a letter to W-5 requesting they check this huge puppymill out and see that the conditions are horrific and need to be shut down and the sick animals need medical attention.
• I believe with help we can all close the pigs down
• that place breaches any minimum standards for the well-being of animals
• that they are greedy people
• these dogs get no exercise and are not loved. There is no companionship there and they are fed the cheapest crappiest food
• how can you walk through the barn and say how happy and nice this guestbook is not right.
• paus is making up names and this guestbook must be fake
• every time someone buys a puppy from this place they are condoning animal abuse and financially rewarding the abusers
• I hope paws is shut down because these people are obviously not only lacking morals and decency they also lack some serious intelligence
• Paws will only take cash and no taxes are paid
• paws just bought around 100 more dogs they must plan on breeding them to death too....

The goal of these comments is to try to cause serious damage to the business of our client, and is stated as follows in the website(s):

• I am trying to help the sick and put the kennel down and out
• we are doing all we can to shut this place down
• this thread has stopped many people from buying
• please stop buying from them and tell others the same

Broadcasting of Defamation

Publishers, such as newspapers, magazines and broadcasters, are responsible and liable for everything that they produce, post and broadcast. The liability is grounded in the fact that they can edit what they wish to include and exclude from their publication, be it a newspaper, magazine, television broadcast, website or newsgroup.

Written Apology and Press Release

We are currently evaluating the extent of the damages caused by the defamatory comments made by the above-mentioned individuals and websites.

In the meantime, we request that you provide our clients with a full and unconditional written apology, the wording of which has to be approved by our clients. Furthermore, we insist that you withdraw all defamatory comments, apologizing to our clients for the damage to their reputation, and admitting that the comments made and posted on these websites, was made in error.

Full Disclosure

Please provide us forthwith with copies of any and all postings or other comments regarding our clients which have been on your websites, regardless of whether it has been published or not. Please also indicate whether any other postings have been posted about our clients other than what was found to date, or whether this matter has been discussed with any other third party.

Notice of Claim

We are hopeful that this matter can be resolved amicably and that our clients can be appropriately and monetarily compensated.

However, if we have not heard from you by Wednesday, October 19, 2005, we have instructions from our clients to commence a claim for defamation and negligence in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario against all the above-listed individuals and / or website operators.

Comments, Suggestions, Arguments, and Rants
can be posted to the Puppy Mill Detective Agency

  My Initial Reply to the above Notice of Action

The Catbark Fairy Tale  

Please feel free to repost anything here on your website.
Help spread our concerns across the world wide web!