Lynda Knight fought for the status of her pet pig, Piglet, in front of a well-attended Jasper provincial court Sept. 26.
The trial lasted almost three hours, and ended in applause as Judge C. D. Gardner dismissed the case.
The trial stemmed from a $100 ticket Jasper Bylaw Enforcement gave Knight in July for possession of livestock, contrary to the municipality鈥檚 domestic animal bylaw.
Knight, who believes her Vietnamese pot-bellied pig is a pet, not livestock, chose to fight the ticket.
The case hinged on the interpretation of a few key sections of municipal bylaw 126.
Jasper Bylaw Enforcement initially ticketed Knight under section 7.4, which states: 鈥淣o person shall keep in the town any livestock鈥� other than for sanctioned rodeos.
In court, the municipality鈥檚 lawyer, Aisling Ryan, focused on section 2.1.10, which defines livestock as 鈥渃attle, horses, sheep, pigs, goats or other animals commonly kept on farms or for agricultural purposes.鈥�
After a brief outline of those sections, Ryan called Jasper bylaw officer Neil Jones as a witness. For nearly 20 minutes she asked detailed questions about the day he gave Knight the ticket.
Ryan had Jones describe the pig, a picture of the pig and what he observed the pig doing the day he issued the ticket.
鈥淲hat was it about the animal that lead you to believe it was a pig?鈥� Ryan asked at one point, prompting laughter from the crowd.
The corners of Jones鈥� mouth turned up, as he took a moment before answering.
鈥淎 snout, trotters,鈥� he said, raising his eyebrows, 鈥渁ll the indications of a pig.鈥�
Knight represented herself. She presented a definition of 鈥渓ivestock鈥� from the Department of Agriculture, but it was not accepted by the judge, as the only definitions that concerned the court were those in the bylaw.
Knight also told the court how important Piglet is to her family. She called her daughter, Jamin Lanzoni-Knight, as a witness.
Lanzoni-Knight told the court how Piglet helps her as a therapy animal.
鈥淚 love her, she鈥檚 a big part of my life,鈥� she said, explaining that Piglet often sleeps in bed with her.
As her eyes puffed up and her face reddened, she told the court how Piglet is 鈥渓ike a child鈥� to her.
When it came time for the final arguments, Ryan stuck to interpretation of the bylaw, focusing on the specifics of its language. She argued the bylaw clearly includes 鈥減ig鈥� in its definition of livestock. Regardless of what specific kind of pig it is, she said, it鈥檚 not allowed in town.
Knight argued the language of the bylaw was vague and contradictory. She said Piglet is clearly a pet, not livestock, and shouldn鈥檛 be considered under section 2.1.10.
Gardner took about 25 minutes to reach a decision.
鈥淲hat this case comes down to is the definition of livestock,鈥� he said, upon re-entering the courtroom.
He said the word 鈥渙ther鈥� in section 2.1.10 鈥渢ies together鈥� the listed animals with the statement 鈥渃ommonly kept on farms for agricultural purposes.鈥�
According to his interpretation, an animal would have to be kept on a farm for agricultural purposes to be classified as 鈥渓ivestock鈥� under the bylaw.
According to Gardner, Piglet does not belong in that category.
鈥淚t鈥檚 obvious that this pig is kept for domestic purposes,鈥� he said. Shortly after, Gardner dismissed the case.
As most of the crowd applauded, Knight turned around and pressed her hands to her mouth. She walked to her daughter and wrapped her in a bear hug.
鈥淲e are just really, super happy,鈥� she said moments later.
She acknowledged, however, the decision was just one step in what will likely be a longer process.
鈥淚 understand we will still have some hoops to jump through,鈥� she said.
In a phone interview, Sept. 27, Peter Waterworth, Jasper鈥檚 chief administrative officer, said until the municipality reviews the case with its lawyer, he cannot make an official comment.
鈥淲e await a report from our lawyer and will review the position once it is received,鈥� he said.
Waterworth couldn鈥檛 say whether the municipality will pursue the matter any further. In August, however, Licensing and Enforcement Manager Dave Osborne told the 51暗网 that if Knight was found innocent, he would present the judgment to the municipal council, who would likely amend the bylaw to make it more definitive.
That amendment, like all bylaw amendments, would also have to be approved by Parks Canada.
That, however, is just one possible option. Until the municipality reviews the case, it won鈥檛 know how it wants to continue, and Waterworth said he鈥檚 unsure when the municipality鈥檚 lawyer will finish her report.
Trevor Nichols
[email protected]
