Animal Activists Appeal Break-and-Enter, Mischief Convictions and 30-Day Jail Sentences for Exposing Animal Cruelty at Excelsior Hog Farm

Friday marked the fourth anniversary of the day Soranno, Schafer, and scores of others were arrested on April 28, 2019, following an occupation of Excelsior Hog Farm in a civil disobedience action organised by Meat the Victims. The Crown decided to only proceed against Soranno, Schafer, and fellow activists Roy Sasano and Geoff Regier, who together are known as the Excelsior 4. All four were charged with more than 20 indictable offences, but Regier’s charges were dropped after a pretrial hearing in May 2022, and Sasano was acquitted at trial.

In the appeal factum filed Wednesday, Soranno and Schafer argue that BC Supreme Court Justice Frits Verhoeven made errors in law by blocking them from showing the jury video evidence of animal cruelty at Excelsior, including footage the activists were accused of exposing. Furthermore, Justice Verhoeven prevented Soranno and Schafer from arguing that the hog farm had engaged in unlawful animal abuse, eliminating any possibility of arguing that Soranno and Schafer believed their actions to be lawful. According to the factum, Justice Verhoeven also incorrectly admitted prejudicial testimony from a veterinarian who claimed that the activists had violated biosecurity protections despite no evidence that this had occurred.

The factum accuses Justice Verhoeven of erring in not staying the proceedings based on lost evidence. It was revealed during trial that the Abbotsford police had both lost and destroyed crucial evidence central to the activists’ case. Three hidden cameras were found at Excelsior Hog Farm in March 2019, along with SD cards containing hundreds of hours of video evidence, some of which depicted criminal animal abuse, according to the Excelsior 4. Instead of ensuring the preservation of this evidence during an active investigation, the SD cards mysteriously went missing while in police custody. Then, in August 2019, for no apparent reason, the Abbotsford police ordered the destruction of all three cameras the activists were accused of planting in the hog farm. Police records show that the evidence destruction occurred soon after Regier emailed the BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BCSPCA)—the sole agency tasked with animal agriculture enforcement—to let them know that the cameras in police possession contained evidence of animal abuse.

Another argument central to the appeal is that Justice Verhoeven erred in his instructions to the jury by not limiting the testimony of Dr. David Dykshorn, a veterinarian who attended at the farm on the day of the protest. Dykshorn’s testimony discussed biosecurity at length and left jurors with a false impression that the activists had put the pigs’ health at risk, a claim that was never proven in court. The threshold for admitting expert testimony is high and the court typically does not allow witnesses to testify to their opinions. The opinion of an expert witness is only necessary if the subject matter is beyond the common understanding of the trier of fact, and must be controlled and handled carefully.

“The prejudicial nature of Dr. Dykshorn’s testimony during trial, and the judge’s jury instruction to use Dykshorn’s testimony ‘without restraint’ in reaching a verdict, warrants a new trial,” wrote Peter Sankoff, the appellate lawyer for Soranno and Schafer, in the factum.

The factum also disputes Justice Verhoeven’s interpretation of “lawful use” in deciding whether the appellants’ actions interfered with the lawful use of the hog farm property. For a jury to convict on a mischief charge, the Crown must show that a defendant obstructed, interrupted, or interfered with the lawful use and enjoyment of their property. In determining lawful use, Verhoeven claimed that the treatment of farm animals at the hog farm was irrelevant, thereby blocking a ‘colour of right’ defence and disregarding important evidence of their motivation for entering the farm property.

The appellants also argue that they were prevented from using the necessity defence, which would have allowed Soranno and Schafer to argue that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm to animals from occurring. The appellants further argue that their actions were necessary to expose the animal abuse and neglect taking place at Excelsior Hog Farm, and that the trial judge erred in not considering this defence. Instead, Justice Verhoeven claimed that the activists had a “political agenda” in seeking to publicize the video evidence of animal cruelty, thereby using irrelevant considerations in determining whether certain evidence should be admissible at trial.

“Animal agriculture is an entirely hidden industry, with zero transparency and accountability,” said Soranno. “Because the BCSPCA cannot make unannounced inspections of animal farms without a warrant, their ability to prevent or curb animal abuse is extremely limited. Even when the BCSPCA is provided with video evidence of abuse, like the footage of Excelsior Hog Farm, they still fail to prosecute the abusers.” The Excelsior 4 and other animal activists are demanding an enforcement agency that adequately protects animals and is accountable to the public. The BCSPCA and animal activists are united in calling for the BC Ministry of Agriculture to implement publicly monitored CCTV cameras in all slaughterhouses. “We will continue to fight for animal rights and to hold accountable those responsible for animal cruelty,” continued Soranno.

Soranno and Schafer seek to set aside their convictions and request a new trial. An appeal hearing will be scheduled in the coming weeks.

Appellants Amy Soranno and Nick Schafer are available for interviews. Contact Kris Hermes at 604-228-9993 or krishermes@earthlink.net to arrange an interview.

Additional information can also be found at the Excelsior 4 website: www.excelsior4.org.

###