Niki Sharma's troubles haven't ended yet with the Province's population
December 29, 2025
While a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the BC Supreme court on November 21, 2025 accuses the federal and B.C. government of keeping property owners in the dark amid the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title ruling, Deputy Premier and Attorney General Niki Sharma's ministry faces another court battle for allegedly allowing unfair laws to continue against BC's people with pets and animals population.
A constitutional challenge under section 7 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms faces the Attorney General
Sharma's latest nightmare with the province's population started by an email campaign letter from people with pets in British Columbia that the Attorney General chose to ignore. People with pets from all over the province had emailed Deputy Premier and Attorney General Sharma with their concerns over pets and animals being seized by the BC SPCA while receiving veterinary treatment and care.
The current practices by the BC SPCA of circumventing the pet guardian's treating veterinarian by hiring an alternative veterinary professional to assess an animal under treatment raises ethical concerns regarding animal welfare advocacy particularly considering the emotional and financial toll on people with pets who only wish to provide the best care for their animals.
The campaign referred to as
Justice for people and their pets in veterinary care was started and organized by
the Society For British Columbia Guardians With Animals (BC SPGA) a non-profit, volunteer run, incorporated Society
that strives to make the lives for animals and pets better by advocating for their guardians and providing programs and services.
"The society received angry emails from people with pets and animals who had lost their furry family members to the animal enforcement actions, mostly the BC SPCA, while the animal was under veterinary care. The practice seems completely contrary to animal welfare standards."
Sharma's solution to the Justice for people and their pets in veterinary care emails
was to put people's concerns on the back burner.
"Of all the people we know directly sent the email to the Attorney General no one has received a response. The emails from concerned citizens may have ended up in the trash bin or on the shelf. She (Sharma) didn't seem particularly to care about the growing concerns by people who had lost their furry family members to the alleged unfair practice although her ministry oversees the province's justice system, which is to ensure fairness and legal advice to the government."
What did the Attorney General Sharma know?
Like the proposed class action lawsuit filed by individuals allegedly unknowingly affected
by the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title ruling after the trial had ended in the BC Supreme court,
another claim was filed against the
Attorney General's ministry on December 19, 2025 by
a person who alleges that the BC SPCA seized a therapy pony under the treatment of two licensed, veterinary professionals
for an injury he had incurred from an accident while in his barn. The person was charged with an offense under the
Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act although there had been no complaints about her from the two treating veterinarians at any
time.
Then shortly before her provincial court trial commenced by Crown counsel under the Ministry's oversight, Legal Aid BC withdrew legal representation. Legal Aid BC (LABC), is a Crown corporation that delivers legal aid services in BC under a framework with the Ministry of Attorney General. The pet guardian had no previous animal abuse charges, no criminal record, and no experience with criminal courts.
"Here we have a person who hired two veterinarians to treat an injured animal where the BC SPCA then hired an untreating vet to assess the animal under treatment so they could seize the animal. The BC SPCA non-treating veterinarian then euthanized the pony. Legal Aid BC, under the purview of the Attorney General ministry withdrew their offer for legal representation shortly before the commencement of trial. Big players in the BC NDP government knew about the Crown's action to prosecute including the Attorney General, A/ Deputy Minister Barbara Carmichael, Premier Eby, Emma Lehrer (Administrative Crown Counsel), Assistant Deputy Attorney General Peter Juk, and a selection of other high ranking officials. Although the Attorney General ignored the growing concerns of people with pets, her staff and the Premier certainly knew of the injustice and went along with it."
Sharma's Continued Lack Of Response While In The Know
Despite many emails to various ministry officials, the Crown counsel who prosecuted the individual in the provincial court reiterated that there would be no responses.
"You have copied the premier, Attorney General and other high ranking government officials on much of this correspondence. Many of their offices have indicated they will no longer be responding to you."
It is not known why the Attorney General did not react when Legal Aid pulled its legal defense from the unsuspecting individual who had been charged with the offense. As the ministry that ensures fairness in the justice system the Attorney General would have known that imprisonment and high fines are considered by the courts in claims commenced by the Crown.
A section 7 challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleges that the government has deprived someone of their right to life, liberty, or security of the person in a way that violates the principles of fundamental justice. This means that the government action wasn't fair or followed proper legal process.
"Section 7 - Life, liberty, and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 7 guarantees the life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians. It also requires that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever they intrude on those rights. Section 7 often comes into play in criminal matters because an accused person clearly faces the risk that, if convicted, his or her liberty will be lost.."
If the self-represented individual succeeds on this petition in the B.C. Supreme court, it will affect all people with pets in Canada positively by recognizing that responsible pet guardians that seek veterinary care for sick or injured pets or animals have the right to do so and the law that allows Crown to prosecute is not fair and deprives those individuals of their constitutional rights.
