Photo by Gord Fortin
Graham Lang and Shelley Cuthbert
Court tosses dog owner’s suit against ex-neighbours
The $1-million defamation lawsuit launched by the former owner of the Tagish dog kennel has been dismissed.
The $1-million defamation lawsuit launched by the former owner of the Tagish dog kennel has been dismissed.
Shelley Cuthbert’s lawsuit had targeted then-neighbours Stefan and Ursula Angerer, Leopold and Edeltraud Selinger, Gerry McGraw, Stefan Landfried, Emerald Gilespie, Anne Middler and Lisa Gallant.
These are the neighbours who had pursued litigation against Cuthbert over nuisance complaints.
Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale dismissed the lawsuit on Monday. Cuthbert did not appear in court in person, by phone nor by video.
Before making his decision, Veale asked the counsels for the neighbours if they would like an adjournment.
Graham Lang, the lawyer representing Gilespie and Gallant, said he did not need an adjournment. André Roothman, the lawyer representing the remaining neighbours and who appeared by phone, concurred.
Lang asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed because Cuthbert did not follow a November 2018 court order to post a $15,000 security. Cuthbert had needed to pay this security for her defamation suit to proceed.
Lang added that Cuthbert had told him she would not be attending Monday’s proceeding. He told the court that he advised her that he would be applying to have the suit dismissed.
He sent her a reminder before the hearing, but heard nothing back until she sent an affidavit explaining her reasons for not attending.
Veale pointed out that Cuthbert was aware that she could have appeared by phone; Lang agreed.
Lang said Cuthbert needs to tell the court that she can pay the security or explain the reasons why she cannot. He pointed out she has done neither.
He explained that Cuthbert brought this litigation forward after she lost the nuisance suit and subsequent appeal. He said he believed her defamation claims are weak, and that this lawsuit was a form of retribution for the previous litigation.
“Our position is this is a retaliatory effort,” Lang said.
In reading the new affidavit, he added, it felt like Cuthbert was conceding that her litigation would be unsuccessful.
“I think this is the end of the road for this claim,” Lang said.
Veale thanked Lang for his submissions and said he did not think he needed to hear from Roothman.
Veale also felt that Cuthbert was targeting the people who had pursued the nuisance complaints. He took the point that she did not pay the securities, an order he had given her.
Veale pointed out that she has said she had a family issue she needed to attend to.
He said he understood the importance of that issue, but stated she has given no indication that she could or would pay the security.
With that, the lawsuit was dismissed.
The Star was able to obtain a copy of the affidavit Lang referenced and which was filed in the Supreme Court on Jan. 14.
In the document, Cuthbert states that neither Roothman nor Lang provided her with potential dates for Monday’s hearing. She explained that her family issue would take precedence, and that she would not be able to attend Monday’s proceeding.
Cuthbert alleges that the defamation she has suffered from her neighbours has destroyed her business, which was her only income. The nuisance lawsuit resulted in a court order that she could not have more than two dogs on her former Tagish property.
She claims she walked away from that property, and has no assets to sell to pay the security.
In the affidavit, she said the security order has cut off her access to the courts due to her limited finances.
“The court order has made it clear anyone who is poverty-stricken does not have access to the civil court process, when they (the court) have ensured that their primary income was shut down,” she said in the affidavit.
She feels that by dismissing her suit, the court seems to be condoning the alleged defamation and harassment she claims to have endured for six years.
Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (15)
Up 17 Down 3
tnk on Jan 27, 2019 at 3:00 pm
For anyone who sill thinks she's such a wonderful person I am not making a baseless opinion. I have met her and my statement about 'the city' which I'm referring to the only one here Whitehorse. Including bylaw, law enforcement and the judicial system have all failed to follow through on almost every single order they have passed down including court orders for years. And since she is located outside city limits, it is the animal health unit who deals with her and they have also failed to enforce court orders. For any one who supports her try looking a the evidence. It all supports the fact she is literally fits the definition of an animal hoarder.
Let's look at the facts. This has been an ongoing situation for 5 years where she has been sued because of having far to many animals past her capabilities, being offered help on so many level but unable no matter what to rehome or accept help or let any go even with legal orders from the courts to reduce the number. Instead they continued to grow. Next she loses her property because she is unwilling to relinquish to proper authorities, and shelters or follow court orders and risk arrest. Now admits she's homeless, but instead makes the questionable decision to transfer 50 dogs now 60 something to illegally squat throughout the winter without proper housing because she believes that no one else can care for them. And even now unable to see a negative impact on herself and the animals. She is literately a perfect example of an animal hoarder and anyone who still disagrees is clearly blind.
Lastly the difference between her and rescue is when an animal goes to a rescue their ultimate goal is rehab, train, rehome NOT KEEP these animals. They never leave her care except for a few she helped last year by choosing to kill them herself. Anyone who gives her their dog is completely irresponsible. Take them to an actual shelter to benefit them if you care. Here is the definition of Animal hoarding. "It is keeping a higher-than-usual number of animals as domestic pets without ability to properly house or care for them, while at the same time denying this inability. Compulsive hoarding can be characterized as a symptom of mental disorder rather than deliberate cruelty towards animals. Hoarders are deeply attached to their pets and find it extremely difficult to let the pets go. They typically cannot comprehend that they are harming their pets by failing to provide them with proper care''.
Up 6 Down 16
jean on Jan 26, 2019 at 1:27 pm
Every time this story appears in the 'news' the knee-jerk "witch hunt" mentality displayed by some of the comments and the 'likes' they get is disgusting. What a dismal display of intolerance for someone doing something that doesn't even affect them personally. They just think it's "wrong".
Fortunately these intolerant ones are a vocal minority. The average Yukoner I talked with about this issue have all agreed that the government should stop harassing one of the few people trying to do something about unwanted pets.
Instead the government should be working with this caring volunteer to find a place where they can legally operate a pet rescue and re-home facility with the government's assistance.
For gawds sake we've got thousands of square kilometers of 'crown' and aboriginal land in the southern Yukon. There's no excuse for not working with this person to give her some land and develop solutions to help the unwanted pets that irresponsible owners carelessly discard every year.
Up 7 Down 23
Always Questions on Jan 25, 2019 at 7:50 pm
Wow! as a Yukoner I am ashamed of the intolerant opinions and punitive solutions being imposed by the "establishment" (ya dating myself, what?!), who ARE you people?
I'm just trying to be realistic. Have any of you had to find property to meet all the requirements? We got lots & lots of LAND - just try and get any of it. Natives included, they're working on it I think, in time eh? For those most worried about the dogs, you're right it is not their fault, so how come we can't get this resolved compassionately and humanly? Excuse me, but Shelly is a rescuer, not an abuser.
Them 'powers that be' should be working with her, not running her over at every opportunity (preferred use of my tax $). I don't even think she's looking for FREE, perhaps affordable? Just like the rest of us.
Shelly will become a colourful 5% one day I would hope, it's quite the story, can we make it have a reasonably happy new beginning, mostly for the dogs?
Up 21 Down 6
I Worry About the Dogs on Jan 25, 2019 at 1:31 pm
Through this whole process, I've worried about the dogs.
I only have one dog and there are times, especially when the weather drops to frigid temperatures, that I worry about my dog having enough mental stimulation and physical exercise. I can't imagine having to figure out how to do that for 40+ dogs!
While I can respect and admire her intentions (I wish I could save every mistreated dog out there too), I wonder if what she is doing is realistic? With the number of dogs she has, is it possible to truly rehabilitate and re-home them, while ensuring all their needs both mental and physical are met? Is this something she is even interested in doing, or are these simply dogs she wants to keep for herself?
At the end of the day, I hope the best interest of the dogs are put first. I don't know what that means, as obviously I don't know what condition any of the dogs are in mentally or physically. I also don't know Shelley's qualifications to tell if a dog is suitable for re-homing or not. But overall, I'm not sure what she's doing is the most humane thing for them either. I hope that whatever is best for them is done, and soon!
Up 13 Down 39
Dan Huntsman on Jan 24, 2019 at 2:06 pm
I hope the dogs are not killed when the authorities clear her camp out.
She is misguided and blinded by her emotional passion but I feel sympathy for the way she has been singled out in this witch hunt.
Up 19 Down 3
Yukonblonde on Jan 24, 2019 at 12:19 am
@tnk. What on earth “city” are you referring to that should be doing what and where?
Up 24 Down 11
Charles on Jan 23, 2019 at 5:22 pm
For DOGS sake, enough is enough. I beg the City to do the right thing and remove these dogs already from their miserable prison. Everybody knows the saying: Not even my dog would live like that: But they do. It truly breaks my heart when I think about these poor, helpless animals. But I fear by now it is to late to rehome most of them.
Had the By-Law acted sooner, there would of been a good chance that some of these dogs would be at a home by now and loved by a family.
Up 45 Down 9
Roy on Jan 23, 2019 at 5:22 pm
Once again SC ignores proper court procedures, plays the victim-card, and uses language designed to elicit sympathy from the bleeding-hearts. "Family issue", 'poor people can't have justice I guess', etc.... whatever. Again, had she followed the rules, she would not be in this position now. She has only herself to blame.
Up 36 Down 7
Tnk on Jan 23, 2019 at 2:23 pm
@max Mack - one more statement. You clearly do not know the definition of hoarder. Someone who has way to many things to properly care for cannot let go even when it's for their own good. Even if it brings harm to the animals in her possession. Are you joking? She has had these dogs for years and will NOT ever rehome them. Collects more and more to a point that the welfare of the animals is poor. She has been offered by multiple sources including mae bachur who agree they would take a portion, provide medical proper assessments, training and rehoming. They are fenced in and locked in kennels for their whole lives.
Up 37 Down 7
Tnk on Jan 23, 2019 at 2:16 pm
@max Mack - you are not allowed to remove trees, clear land, set up fences or shelter for extended stay which she has done all of the above. She is an illegal squatter that's why the city has left multiple notices to vacate the land but she has not done so and the city is terrible for enforcing their own rules. She should be be removed, receive a mental evaluation and have the dogs removed from her irresponsible care. Is failing to provide proper care to dogs that could have real shelters and the opportunities to find a real home provided by actual animal shelters.
Up 62 Down 12
how are the dogs doing? on Jan 23, 2019 at 11:06 am
Has anyone checked on her prisoners lately? After that week or two of -40, I wonder how they fared. It is sickening that she is allowed to play games like this, exercising her need to display that she will do whatever she wants and get away with it, at the expense of living creatures.
Get those dogs away from her! You know where they are, pick them up! Let her sue the Territory for finally enforcing some animal welfare laws. She is not providing proper shelter, she is not out there most of the time from what we have read, (government officials went out several times to deliver notices - no Shelley, neighbours videoing the place - no Shelley).
I am worried about the dogs. If she were hoarding newspapers I'd say leave her alone, but not when there are animals involved.
Up 15 Down 62
Max Mack on Jan 22, 2019 at 4:45 pm
@tnk
Apparently, you think lawsuits should only be brought by fancy suits, folks with moolah, and those with connections?
Illegally squatting? Actually, the Yukon Lands Act permits her to camp for many months. It is your opinion that she is squatting, but she is not "squatting" until she remains in that spot after the court orders her out or until she has exceeded the maximum allowable stay set out in the legislation. So, she is not squatting - although my confidence that the courts will render an impartial decision on anything involving Ms. Cuthbert is irrevocably shattered. (My opinion: the courts, lawyers and "Yukon's leading lights" have agreed among themselves the Cuthbert has to go, and they are doing all in their power to make that happen; the law be damned. )
Hoarder? The evidence is against you there. She does not demonstrate the classic signs of hoarding, and she was clearly running a business prior to the courts giving her the screw-job.
Arrest her for what? Please describe the statutory or regulatory offences Ms. Cuthbert has committed that might warrant arrest.
What do you think will happen to the dozens of dogs that Ms. Cuthbert has in her care if she is arrested? Mae Bachur clearly does not have the resources to deal with these dogs. Many of these dogs will simply end up being euthanized, although I'm sure a great play will be staged with these dogs being shipped out and then put down when they are out of the territory.
Up 108 Down 17
tnk on Jan 22, 2019 at 4:09 pm
Ridiculous anyone had to waste time with her lawsuit. If anything, the only thing remaining to do is physically remove her from government land where she's illegally squatting with the dogs and place them in proper rescues as she is NOT a rescue and does not even have land or permanent housing for them. She's a hoarder and the Yukon is the only place you can get away with this for yrs vs simply arresting her like they should have previously done and remove the dogs. But there are no animal bylaws outside Whitehorse and the Animal health unit fails frequently to do their jobs.
Up 91 Down 11
CaseDismissedThePoint on Jan 22, 2019 at 4:06 pm
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Except she appears to be the one who has brought such scorn and ridicule upon herself with this protracted and groundless counterclaim. We can all claim to have ‘our day in court’, but it rather helps if you show up .
Up 25 Down 139
Dan Huntsman on Jan 22, 2019 at 3:31 pm
The court system - should it discriminate on the basis of a person's finance?
This is a witch hunt and it would have been ruled differently if this woman was not of European descent.