An Calgary widow was cleared of neglecting her elderly cat, Tom, after she was turned into authorities by the vet who was treating it..Cheryle Baker was found not guilty of causing or permitting an animal to be in distress by Justice S.L. Van de Veen, in a written decision Thursday in the Alberta Court of Justice, and obtained by the Western Standard..Court heard Baker adopted Tom and his litter mate, Chuck, 15 years ago and was hit by a string of tragedies starting in 2020..In the fall of 2020, Baker's husband died of lung cancer and in February 2021, Chuck, was euthanized at her home by Dr. Cooney, a veterinarian who did house calls. .While there, Cooney did a quick exam of Tom.."The accused testified Dr. Clooney looked at him and checked him over. Dr. Cooney mentioned to the accused words to the effect 'let's hope Tom doesn't get diabetes,'" Van de Veen wrote in her judgement..The judge noted Tom's behaviour changed after the death of its brother. He stopped sleeping with Baker and went off his wet food.."Tom retained a healthy appetite until late August when the accused emailed Dr. Cooney on Aug. 27, 2021 concerning Tom. He did not appear to be in pain, but the accused thought he might have diabetes, since Dr. Cooney had mentioned this in February. The accused also thought Tom might have lung cancer," wrote Van de Veen..As Tom became nervous on car rides, Baker wanted Cooney to come to her home to conduct the exam. But three weeks went by without a response from the vet. After going through the vet's website an appointment was made for Sept. 19.."However, on the night of September 15 her cat vomited blood and the accused contacted Riverbend Clinic to have Tom euthanized. She knew then Tom could not wait to see Dr. Cooney, that he was suffering, and that he would have to be euthanized," wrote Van de Veen..Baker decided to then move Tom to the Pet Haven Crematorium because its remains would be handled quicker.."This exemplifies the deep care and concern the accused held for her cat," wrote Van de Veen..But then Dr. Mackie of Pet Haven, concerned Baker had been neglecting Tom, tipped off the the Humane Society over the case and it took possession of Tom's remains for purposes of a necropsy by Dr. Doyle.."In making my findings of fact, I have considered the evidence of both Dr. Mackie and Dr. Doyle who testified Tom had extensive health issues which would have left him in distress for a considerable period of time and that his distress would have included outward signs noticeable to the accused," wrote Van de Veen.."Tom had severe dental disease, liver failure caused by hepatic lipidosis, renal failure and pulmonary neoplastic. He was nearly dead when he was brought in to Dr. Mackie for euthanasia."."However, the outward signs of the distress Dr. Doyle and Dr. Mackie testified to, which they say the accused would have noticed, were not seen by the accused. I accept the accused's evidence that she did not observe the signs of distress Dr. Doyle and Dr. Mackie testified to. These include vomiting, increased urination and thirst, pawing at the mouth, inability to eat hard foods, lethargy and lack of eating generally.".Van de Veen ruled Baker first saw Tom vomit blood on September 14 and 15 and knew he needed to be put down immediately and not wait until the appointment on Sept. 19.."When she knew of Tom's suffering, she immediately dealt with it, not even waiting for her own veterinarian appointment with Dr. Cooney a few days later, despite the fact that Dr. Cooney could come to her home. The fact the accused did not wait for her own veterinarian appointment demonstrates her genuine desire to avoid Tom's suffering once she knew of it," she wrote.
An Calgary widow was cleared of neglecting her elderly cat, Tom, after she was turned into authorities by the vet who was treating it..Cheryle Baker was found not guilty of causing or permitting an animal to be in distress by Justice S.L. Van de Veen, in a written decision Thursday in the Alberta Court of Justice, and obtained by the Western Standard..Court heard Baker adopted Tom and his litter mate, Chuck, 15 years ago and was hit by a string of tragedies starting in 2020..In the fall of 2020, Baker's husband died of lung cancer and in February 2021, Chuck, was euthanized at her home by Dr. Cooney, a veterinarian who did house calls. .While there, Cooney did a quick exam of Tom.."The accused testified Dr. Clooney looked at him and checked him over. Dr. Cooney mentioned to the accused words to the effect 'let's hope Tom doesn't get diabetes,'" Van de Veen wrote in her judgement..The judge noted Tom's behaviour changed after the death of its brother. He stopped sleeping with Baker and went off his wet food.."Tom retained a healthy appetite until late August when the accused emailed Dr. Cooney on Aug. 27, 2021 concerning Tom. He did not appear to be in pain, but the accused thought he might have diabetes, since Dr. Cooney had mentioned this in February. The accused also thought Tom might have lung cancer," wrote Van de Veen..As Tom became nervous on car rides, Baker wanted Cooney to come to her home to conduct the exam. But three weeks went by without a response from the vet. After going through the vet's website an appointment was made for Sept. 19.."However, on the night of September 15 her cat vomited blood and the accused contacted Riverbend Clinic to have Tom euthanized. She knew then Tom could not wait to see Dr. Cooney, that he was suffering, and that he would have to be euthanized," wrote Van de Veen..Baker decided to then move Tom to the Pet Haven Crematorium because its remains would be handled quicker.."This exemplifies the deep care and concern the accused held for her cat," wrote Van de Veen..But then Dr. Mackie of Pet Haven, concerned Baker had been neglecting Tom, tipped off the the Humane Society over the case and it took possession of Tom's remains for purposes of a necropsy by Dr. Doyle.."In making my findings of fact, I have considered the evidence of both Dr. Mackie and Dr. Doyle who testified Tom had extensive health issues which would have left him in distress for a considerable period of time and that his distress would have included outward signs noticeable to the accused," wrote Van de Veen.."Tom had severe dental disease, liver failure caused by hepatic lipidosis, renal failure and pulmonary neoplastic. He was nearly dead when he was brought in to Dr. Mackie for euthanasia."."However, the outward signs of the distress Dr. Doyle and Dr. Mackie testified to, which they say the accused would have noticed, were not seen by the accused. I accept the accused's evidence that she did not observe the signs of distress Dr. Doyle and Dr. Mackie testified to. These include vomiting, increased urination and thirst, pawing at the mouth, inability to eat hard foods, lethargy and lack of eating generally.".Van de Veen ruled Baker first saw Tom vomit blood on September 14 and 15 and knew he needed to be put down immediately and not wait until the appointment on Sept. 19.."When she knew of Tom's suffering, she immediately dealt with it, not even waiting for her own veterinarian appointment with Dr. Cooney a few days later, despite the fact that Dr. Cooney could come to her home. The fact the accused did not wait for her own veterinarian appointment demonstrates her genuine desire to avoid Tom's suffering once she knew of it," she wrote.
