The BC Supreme Court judge’s decision recently ruffled some feathers.
The City of Vancouver took a woman back to court in an attempt to appeal a decision that allowed her to keep two guinea fowl hens in her backyard.
In September 2022, Arielle Reid was charged with violating a section of the City of Vancouver’s Animal Control Bylaw.
According to the trial decision, Reid grew up in Jamaica and lived in Mozambique, where guinea fowls are often kept as pets.
According to the judge who acquitted Reid of the charge, he said that he found Reid did not “domesticate” the guinea fowls, “but had raised and socialized them.”
He also said that Reid kept the birds as “beloved companions,” much like how other people keep dogs, cats, budgies, or parrots.
“Her conduct in stewardship and care of these birds is exemplary. She has provided for these birds an exceptional sanctuary… There is no evidence that their presence has any deleterious effects on our civic life,” the judge said.
He went on to say that the bylaw was “a model of bland prose bereft of nuance, or concealing within its complex idiomatic layers multiple corollaries or meanings.”
The judge noted that the bylaw did not exactly list that guinea fowls were prohibited and that any reference to “fowls” does not prove the City intended to ban them.
Reid argued that the City’s bylaw was “silent on guinea fowls that are non-native to British Columbia,” so they “fall inside the category of exotic birds.” So the only limitation is that she cannot house more than 12. The judge accepted her argument.
City’s appeal argument
However, the summary conviction appeal explained that the City’s appeal argued that its position was straightforward and that “a guinea fowl is a fowl,” so it is prohibited under the bylaw.
The City argued that the judge erred by taking into account the reason Reid kept the guinea pigs, as her intention to keep the animals was not an element of the offence.
“Therefore, the fact that she kept them for the ‘pure joy of their companionship’ does not take them outside of the category of being a ‘fowl,’” the city argued, according to court documents.
Additionally, the City said the judge “improperly imported into the element of the offence a requirement that the keeping of the guinea fowl have a deleterious effect on civic life.”
The City said all it needed to prove the guilty act was that guinea fowls Reid harboured were “fowl.”
However, the judge looking into the appeal said Reid gave “thoughtful” submissions pointing out that the bylaw does not mention guinea fowl by name anywhere, so it cannot be a prohibited animal.
The City did argue that “it is common sense to conclude that guinea fowls are fowls — given its name.”
The judge said the City didn’t provide any evidence or extrinsic materials to support its position.
“I am not persuaded that a guinea fowl is necessarily a fowl because the word ‘fowl’ appears in its commonly held English name,” the judge explained.
“In the absence of the City providing definitions of ‘poultry,’ ‘fowl,’ or ‘exotic bird,’ there is ambiguity.”
The City’s attempt to appeal the decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court Monday.