Life Experience

Tim Trow got re-elected on November 12, 2001 as the President of the Toronto Humane Society Board, after the THS lost the city contract to be a pound for stray animals. The President terminated the employment of the Executive Director.
Under the President’s direction, the THS started in May 2002 to admit strays, mainly cats and kittens under the OSPCA Act as animals ‘in distress’. Along with his No-Kill Policy, there was a dramatic increase in the number of animals in the shelter. As result of this overcrowding, highly contagious viral diseases such as feline upper respiratory infections (URI) and feline distemper were rampant. There was a dramatic increase in the number of cats and kittens dying in their cages. If there is an unlimited intake of animals in a shelter environment, higher rates of euthanasia are necessary if the animals are not being care for properly with respect to both their physical and emotional needs.
Tim Trow was relentlessly involved in the daily operations of the Toronto Humane Society. I had several private conversations with the Chief Veterinarian, Dr. Steve Sheridan expressing my concerns regarding his inappropriate behaviour and the negative impact it was having on animal welfare.
In April 2005, I decided that I would write a letter to the Board Members of the Toronto Humane Society outlining my grave concerns regarding the operations of the THS shelter, which is entrusted to care for animals. In drafting this letter, I received feedback from Tony Eames, retired CEO of Marketing Division of Coca-Cola Canada, Mark Austin, a lawyer and veterinarian who also has his MBA, and Isabelle Hemond, a THS Board Member.
I finished this letter on May 23, 2005. Isabelle Hemond presented my letter to the THS Board at their Meeting on May 25, 2005. Please refer to Appendix A.

The issues were as follows:

1. Due to overcrowding of the cats and inadequate numbers of staff to clean, feed and treat these cats, there was a high incidence of disease, which was not adequately controlled. As a group, these cats were ‘in distress’.
2. There were a large number of dogs of low adoptability being housed at The Toronto Humane Society for extended periods of time. The housing conditions were not acceptable for this purpose. The overcrowded situation was severely compromising the quality of life of all animals in the shelter.
3. Decision-making with respect to shelter management by the individuals most qualified was not being allowed. In my opinion, the President of The Toronto Humane Society exhibited inappropriate behaviour and interfered with the daily operations of the shelter. According to THS code of conduct, “the health and well-being of the Society’s animals, employees, volunteers and customers is a responsibility of everyone who works and volunteers at the Society”.

I recommended in this letter that the Board appoint a Chief Executive Officer who has leadership capabilities and clearly understands the needs of the Toronto Humane Society and the roles and responsibilities in a non-profit organization.

As I was writing my letter in early May 2005, I was approached by Linda Vitarelli, a THS Animal Cruelty Inspector and asked if I would speak to private investigators hired by Mike Draper, the Chief Inspector of the OSPCA to investigate the overcrowding of the animals at the Toronto Humane Society. I spoke, was taped and gave written documentation to Bill Joynt and Gord McMeekin of the Private Investigators Group on May 25 and November 14, 2005. Gord McMeekin told me that fraudulent behaviour in non- profit organizations is a bigger problem than illegal drugs in Canada.

In March 2006, a blog was created by Laura, a THS Volunteer called “Support the THS: Free for All”, so that people could interact with each other and share their THS stories. I posted two blogs on this site, using my name and position on March 29 and April 30, 2006.

Andrew Chung, reporter from the Toronto Star, contacted me on May 29, 2006 at 8:55 PM via email, asking me to speak with him. He had been reading the blogs and was possibly interested in doing a story on the Toronto Humane Society. I called him and told him my THS story. That telephone conversation educated him to write a cover story, ‘How humane is the Humane Society?’ on Sunday, June 18, 2006. Please refer to Appendix B for the entire article.

“The head of the Toronto Humane Society points with pride to the agency’s remarkably low euthanasia rate. That achievement, say concerned veterinarians and a respected wildlife agency, may be the problem”, wrote Andrew Chung from the Toronto Star.

I had decided to speak with Andrew Chung, in order to bring public awareness about the unnecessary suffering of the animals at the Toronto Humane Society, clearly understanding the risk I was taking. I had exhausted all avenues, both internally and externally, to facilitate the necessary changes that needed to occur at the Toronto Humane Society in the best interest of the animals and the people, as a veterinarian. Besides writing my board letter and speaking with private investigators on behalf of the OSPCA, I had contacted the President of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario, The Dean of the Ontario Veterinary College and the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services without success.

On May 29, 2009, Kate Hammer, reporter from the Globe and Mail wrote part one of a three-part investigation on the Toronto Humane Society. “At the Toronto Humane Society, veterinarians say animals die suffering unnecessarily in their cages while pleas to euthanize them are dismissed. Dozens of staff, volunteers and veterinarians have quit in protest.”
Six months later, the OSPCA raided the Toronto Humane Society and laid criminal charges of animal cruelty against Tim Trow, Dr. Steve Sheridan and three senior officials. These charges were later dropped due to a technicality with the search warrant.
The Board of Directors of the Toronto Humane Society appointed Dr. Jacques Messier DVM, MBA as the Chief Executive Officer of THS on September 1, 2011.

Appendices

Appendix A-My Letter to the Board Members of the Toronto Humane Society

May 23, 2005

Dear Board Member of The Toronto Humane Society,

I have worked at The Toronto Humane Society for over thirteen years as a veterinarian. As well, I have been an OSPCA agent since 1997. In 2000, I participated in the THS Performance Management Process given by LIMAT. I have grave concerns regarding the operations of the THS shelter.

The issues are as follows:

1. Due to overcrowding of the cats, inadequate staff to clean, feed and treat these cats, there is a high incidence of infectious disease, which is not adequately controlled. As a group, the cats are ‘in distress’. I was involved with treating the URI cats on Monday April 4, 2005. On that particular day, there weren’t any available cages for incoming cats. The main URI was full and there were at least 60 cats in the back hall with approximately fifty cats that required force-feeding. Many cages were filthy with diarrhea, food material and nasal spray. The sick cats in the hallway are exposed to excessive noise (barking dogs, machinery etc.). Many modules had not been bleached since February 2005. A few adult cats in the main URI were vomiting which were suspect viral Distemper. This is not an ideal environment for the large number of queens and kittens that will be entering the shelter this spring and summer.

2. There are a large number of dogs of low adoptability being housed at The Toronto Humane Society for extended periods of time. The housing conditions are not acceptable for this purpose. Over the past few months, the shelter has been filled with too many dogs. On April 18, 2005, there were 115 dogs in the building. In the back hall run area, there were 29 dogs (14 dogs were in modules). In Pound A, there were forty-eight dogs. The dogs are kept in individual runs without visual contact to one another. Even though these dogs are walked daily, they spent most of the time in their runs alone. During the day, the noise level is deafening (barking dogs, power washer etc.) The overcrowded situation is severely compromising the quality of life of all animals in the shelter.

Examples of dogs in the shelter for extended periods of time include:

A070893-Cyrus-Pit Bull-Came in as surrender November 17, 2003. Went to Angel Animal Rescue Foundation but the OSPCA brought him back and shut the rescue down. Never bitten but exhibits aggression to people and animals. Currently being housed in Pound A.

A082905-Blue-Pit Bull-Came in November 17, 2004 as a stray. Finder brought to the shelter with a muzzle on. While on a walk with a dog walker in December 2004, he bit the dog walker’s arm when a nearby school’s bell went off and the children were exiting the building. The dog walker had to tie Blue to the fence because she couldn’t control him. Blue went under observation. Adopted May 15, 2005.

A077960-Rocky-Pit Bull X- Came in July 12, 2004 for going after children. He has been under observation twice. Once for scratching a dog walker and the second time for biting a shelter technician. He has also bitten two other shelter technicians but didn’t break skin. In March 2005, he cornered an animal care worker in his run and would not let her leave for 5 minutes. He has undergone a tail amputation for ‘happy tail’ and is in thin condition. Currently being housed in Pound A.

A0626634-Zanjeer-Akita X-Surrendered on March 26, 2003 for no time. Was adopted September 13 and returned on September 20 for no time. Canine services gave the dog back to them on September 27, 2003 and he returned the dog on December 8, 2003. Went to AARF (rescue) and was brought back to THS by OSPCA. Has been under observation, has shown aggression to the technicians and animal care workers. Currently being housed in a back hall run.

I strongly believe that shelter veterinarians should be involved with decision-making regarding the adoptability of dogs with behavioural problems particularly with respect to aggression. This is not occurring at the present time. A team approach could be applied with input from shelter supervisors, technicians, animal care workers and canine services personnel to improve the conditions for shelter dogs and to facilitate the best possible evaluation of these dogs. This would require standards to be made for dogs that are most suitable for adoption. The role of the veterinarian would be to supervise this program.

3. Decision-making with respect to shelter management by the individuals most qualified is not being allowed. In my opinion, the President of The Toronto Humane Society interferes with the daily operations of the shelter.

For example, on Monday, February 14, 2005 I examined A085306 (Rocky), an adult male German Shepherd who came in as a stray on February 10,2005. On Sunday, Rocky had watery diarrhea and was put on IV fluids in a module outside the tech’s clinic. The owner and her brother came to claim the dog early Monday afternoon. I assessed the dog and determined he was fit to be returned to his owner. The President went in person to Dr. Karen Ward questioning her about the dog’s condition. She told him to speak to me. Dr. Ward came to me in the tech’s clinic and told me to call the President at the volunteer’s extension. I spoke to him regarding Rocky. The President seemed concerned about the physical appearance of the owners. He saw them at the front counter of The Toronto Humane Society. I told him that they appeared acceptable to me and that you can’t judge a book by its cover. I told him

that I had spoken to the owner regarding the thin condition of the dog and I was satisfied with the discharge plans I had made for Rocky. I also told him the dog was trying to get out of the module when he recognized the owner. The President said, “ Poor dog, doesn’t understand his own medical needs’’.

Another example:
I was working at The Toronto Humane Society on Sunday, January 23, 2005. Dr. Steve Sheridan had made rounds in the shelter earlier in the day and asked me to perform cat surgeries in the afternoon. At approximately 4:00 pm, the President went through the shelter including the clinic. He first confronted the clinic technician in the clinic cat ward regarding two female cats that were recovering from surgery. He was concerned that they didn’t have any food or water in their cages. He then questioned me about these two cats. I explained to him that these cats were recovering from surgery within the last hour and that food and water are not offered until they are fully recovered i.e. control of voluntary movements which may take several hours. He also asked me why a shelter technician was in the clinic. He had seen her when he had first arrived at the clinic. Shelter technicians will frequently come to the clinic during their shift for various duties such as picking up medication for shelter animals. The President has been overheard in the hallways of The Toronto Humane Society calling the workers lazy. This illustrates his tendency to intimidate employees, especially female employees, including technicians and shelter supervisors with his accusing tone and demands to know details of individual animals.

This attitude has a negative impact on the animals and everyone involved with the shelter. According to THS code of conduct, “the health and well-being of the Society’s animals, employees, volunteers and customers is a responsibility of everyone who works and volunteers at the Society”.

In conclusion, I believe it is in the best interest of the animals, employees, volunteers and the public for The Toronto Humane Society to select a Chief Executive Officer who has leadership capabilities and clearly understands the needs of our Society and roles and responsibilities in a non-profit organization. Thank-you for your consideration in this serious matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Murray DVM

Appendix B- Toronto Star Article by Andrew Chung

How humane is the Humane Society?

The head of the Toronto Humane Society points with pride to the agency’s remarkably low euthanasia rate. That achievement, say concerned veterinarians and a respected wildlife agency, may be the problem.
By Andrew Chung

Jun. 18, 2006. 01:00 AM

The historically embattled Toronto Humane Society has come under scrutiny once again as a group of veterinarians raises serious questions about the quality of care the agency provides for the homeless and wild animals under its roof.

The veterinarians, who all worked for the society, other former employees, and unionized workers in the fourth month of a bitter strike, claim animal care is being compromised in a number of ways, including:

Unlimited admissions to the facility, and maintaining a very low euthanasia rate — going as far as to send unsocialized dogs, which in the past would have been put down, to Chicago for retraining — have contributed to overcrowding and disease;

Non-domestic animals are not being cared for properly, prompting a wildlife rehabilitation agency to cancel its contract with the society;

Managers are interfering with professional decisions on euthanasia and adoptability.

An investigation into these and other concerns was launched last year by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA). The results have not yet been released.

This is the first time the veterinarians are going public with their concerns.

Tim Trow, president of the society’s board of directors, denies the allegations by these veterinarians and past employees, and says he’s proud of how the society is doing.

“We have more public support, more members, more donors, 75,000 of them, more donations than ever. We can intervene more with the animals, afford to care for them more. I’m very proud,” Trow says. “Look at the statistics.”

Those statistics are prominently displayed on the society’s website, where they are contrasted with much higher euthanasia numbers for the City of Toronto’s animal centres.

They show that from 2000, the year before Trow was installed as president, to last year, adoptions of dogs and cats at the society increased from 51 per cent to 75 per cent of the animals admitted to the shelter, and the euthanasia rate declined sharply from 43 per cent to 9 per cent.

But looks can be deceiving, argue Trow’s critics, of which there appear to be many.

The last straw for Esther Attard came one day last October in the form of a scraggly feral cat. When the veterinarian came into work she saw the cat inside her cage, dead, emaciated and yellow discharge oozing from her mouth and nose.

The cat, Speedy, had been at the shelter for about a month, Attard says, and it was difficult to handle or even touch the wild feline.

Shelter workers had hoped to place her with a cat rescue group, but she caught an upper respiratory system illness, and stopped eating.

Meanwhile, Attard says infection was rampant inside the shelter. It was overcrowded, she says, illness was spreading, and animals were taking much longer to recover. The society’s known very low euthanasia rate was contributing to the pressure, she adds.

“It died in its cage overnight,” Attard says, “and nothing was done for it. It really suffered unnecessarily.” Shortly after Speedy’s death, Attard resigned her full-time position of 11 years.

Two other veterinarians have also left since last summer for similar reasons, out of a full- and part-time veterinary staff of nine. Another veterinarian resigned three years ago.

Many of their concerns mirror those of unionized Teamsters employees, most of whom were employees in direct contact with the animals, who have been on strike over a wide range of issues since Feb. 18.

Veterinarian Carolyn Murray parted ways with the society last December after 14 years, disillusioned and disgusted by what was going on.

“There is more than just numbers,” she says. “You have to look at the quality of the care, what was actually happening to those animals.”

Because of what some veterinarians say is overcrowding and insufficient staff to clean, feed and treat the cats, viruses causing highly contagious upper respiratory infections and distemper were rampant. Animals have died in their cages, they say.

“There were a lot dying of dehydration, not eating well, stressed, picking up diseases because they weren’t receiving the optimal preventative care,” Murray says.

A year ago, Murray wrote a letter to the society’s board of directors, outlining her concerns. She reported how the room designated for cats with respiratory infections was full, and sick cats were placed in the back hallway. Cages were “filthy with diarrhea, food material and nasal spray,” Murray wrote.

The shelter’s policy is not to refuse any animals that arrive at its doorstep. That does not make the society unique. Some other shelters also have the same practice.

Given the conditions, however, “if you wanted unlimited intake, you have to have higher rates of euthanasia, if you’re not looking after them properly,” Murray says.

The last straw for Esther Attard came one day last October in the form of a scraggly feral cat. When the veterinarian came into work she saw the cat inside her cage, dead, emaciated and yellow discharge oozing from her mouth and nose.

The cat, Speedy, had been at the shelter for about a month, Attard says, and it was difficult to handle or even touch the wild feline.

Shelter workers had hoped to place her with a cat rescue group, but she caught an upper respiratory system illness, and stopped eating.

Meanwhile, Attard says infection was rampant inside the shelter. It was overcrowded, she says, illness was spreading, and animals were taking much longer to recover. The society’s known very low euthanasia rate was contributing to the pressure, she adds.

“It died in its cage overnight,” Attard says, “and nothing was done for it. It really suffered unnecessarily.” Shortly after Speedy’s death, Attard resigned her full-time position of 11 years.

Two other veterinarians have also left since last summer for similar reasons, out of a full- and part-time veterinary staff of nine. Another veterinarian resigned three years ago.

Many of their concerns mirror those of unionized Teamsters employees, most of whom were employees in direct contact with the animals, who have been on strike over a wide range of issues since Feb. 18.

Veterinarian Carolyn Murray parted ways with the society last December after 14 years, disillusioned and disgusted by what was going on.

“There is more than just numbers,” she says. “You have to look at the quality of the care, what was actually happening to those animals.”

Because of what some veterinarians say is overcrowding and insufficient staff to clean, feed and treat the cats, viruses causing highly contagious upper respiratory infections and distemper were rampant. Animals have died in their cages, they say.

“There were a lot dying of dehydration, not eating well, stressed, picking up diseases because they weren’t receiving the optimal preventative care,” Murray says.

A year ago, Murray wrote a letter to the society’s board of directors, outlining her concerns. She reported how the room designated for cats with respiratory infections was full, and sick cats were placed in the back hallway. Cages were “filthy with diarrhea, food material and nasal spray,” Murray wrote.

The shelter’s policy is not to refuse any animals that arrive at its doorstep. That does not make the society unique. Some other shelters also have the same practice.

Given the conditions, however, “if you wanted unlimited intake, you have to have higher rates of euthanasia, if you’re not looking after them properly,” Murray says.

Another veterinarian, Peter Copeland, resigned in 2003 in part because of the overcrowding, he says. “As a vet, I didn’t have input, to say, `I think we’ve reached our limit, I don’t think we should take any more in.’ There were times I was dissatisfied with the care as a result,” he says in an interview.

When the OSPCA (which, ironically, has been grappling with its own problems over its mandate) hired investigators to look into staff concerns, Murray was one of many employees interviewed.

Tim Trow sits in a conference room adjacent the main office on the society’s second floor. As a volunteer board president, he doesn’t have an “office,” but staff say he is in this room almost every day.

The retired lawyer sits behind piles of paper, signing cheques for dozens of bills. “It’s very expensive running this place,” Trow, 60, sighs. In 2004, the latest financial statement available, the society spent $10.7 million.

Outside his window, a vast concrete shell has been laid for the new $2 million Cat Sky House, which, when finished, will hold 380 cats and relieve crowding on the main floor.

Behind the building, Trow has built three new grassy dog parks, with agility-training equipment that even the Toronto Police use with their dogs.

Trow’s desire to keep animals alive runs deep and wide. Near the main office, a room has been annexed for the isolation of cats with FIV, the feline version of HIV, waiting for adoption.

Another conference room houses cats that have not been socialized and need special attention. “These animals would have been put down in the past,” Trow says.

The shelter is overcrowded, he admits, but limiting animal admissions is not the answer. “It’s a terrible suggestion,” he argues. “Should we let them die on the street?”

He blames the city’s five animal shelters for not taking in the number of animals they should — one-third fewer animals than the society admitted last year.

The city, meanwhile, says it accepts all strays and surrendered pets that come through its doors. The Humane Society receives more animals because it is better known and publicized, says Ron de Burger, the city’s director of healthy environments.

Trow is not overly worried about disease incidence. “There are always diseases in pounds and shelters.” He says the animals arrive harbouring disease and don’t necessarily pick it up at the shelter. “These are minor respiratory diseases along the lines of a cold.”

He also rejects claims that animals are dying. “Far, far fewer animals are losing their lives than before,” he says, because of low euthanasia.

In fact, deaths inside the shelter are up, Trow’s statistics show. The numbers are small in relation to the thousands admitted each year, but in 2000, the death rate (excluding euthanasia) was 0.5 per cent or 48 animals. In 2005, it was 1.8 per cent, or 170 animals, almost four times more.

This, Trow says, is “because of efforts to save them, rather than saying, `This is a sick animal, we need to euthanize them.'”

So why are the veterinarians making these claims?
“I think they genuinely disagree with trying to save more lives,” he says.

A thickly built dog bounds through the room, and soon demands to go outside with a few loud whimpers. “Poor doggie,” Trow says. “I feel sorry for him.”

This is Bandit, the infamous pitbull/Labrador cross that a Justice of the Peace sentenced to death in October of 2004 for biting three-year-old Daniel Collins in the head and leaving him with 200 stitches.

Despite a court order, the society refused to kill Bandit. It is now appealing the sentence. (A new court date has yet to be set.)

“He’s not aggressive,” Trow says. “Does he look aggressive to you?”

The society has become a haven for dogs that some consider aggressive. On a recent tour of the facility, many larger pens were filled with pitbull- type canines that barked uncontrollably and jumped at the bars.

The society is more apt to keep these dogs alive, even though aggressive dogs at most other shelters are euthanized. The veterinarians that left the shelter say that in Toronto, many of these dogs languish in the shelter.

That’s not the case elsewhere. “If it’s an animal that we believe will attack and bite a child, we will euthanize it,” says Bruce Roney, executive director of the Ottawa Humane Society, which deals with more animals yearly than does Toronto.

“If we receive a court order to euthanize, we euthanize. The Toronto Humane Society is not doing that.

“Of the larger humane societies across the province and the country, most of us operate very similarly and have similar philosophies and assumptions — except the Toronto Humane Society.”

Such is Toronto’s philosophy now that dogs with major aggression or socialization problems are even being sent to Chicago for intense retraining. About a dozen dogs have taken this trip, at a cost of about $12,000, Trow says.

`There is more than just numbers. You have to look at the quality of the care, what was actually happening to those animals’
Dr. Carolyn Murray

`If I say to Dr. So and So, “Can you tell me why you believe this animal should be euthanized?” I don’t see anything wrong with that’
Tim Trow

Why Chicago? The behaviourist, he ventures, is “the best there is.”
“It’s very successful,” adds Trow, because the behaviourist adopts the dogs out from there “and reports back to us.”
When it comes to Bandit, more than one veterinarian interviewed by the Star documented him as unadoptable. They, Trow says bluntly, “were wrong.”
Veterinarians complain they are no longer asked to assess behaviour to determine adoptability at the society. Canine or feline services co-ordinators or a behaviourist make those decisions now.
But even those decisions can be overridden, says one employee who left the society recently.
“Decisions on euthanasia were often overruled by management,” says the employee, who asked for anonymity because staff had to sign a confidentiality agreement this year.
The employee tells of a cat that was recently returned three times by different adoptive owners for aggression. The cat was recommended for euthanasia. “But it’s waiting to be adopted again right now.”
Vets are also now questioned about their decisions on euthanasia. Attard was shocked when, after she had euthanized three squirrels last August, she received a letter of suspension from the then-shelter manager.
Though Attard had thought the squirrels weren’t thriving and should be put down for humane reasons, the letter stated that the squirrels, in fact, “seemed to be quite healthy,” and that wildlife euthanasia required “permission from the shelter manager or the shelter supervisor.”
The suspension was eventually quashed after she took it to the senior vet, she says.
“I was devastated that they would think I would euthanize just because. I don’t make those decisions lightly. I agonize,” Attard says.
“This was management interfering with the veterinary procedures.” Trow counters that management is not doing anything wrong.
“I’m the president, I’m responsible for these animals. If I say to Dr. So and So, `Can you tell me why you believe this animal should be euthanized?’ I don’t see anything wrong with that.”
In Ottawa, management stays out of the picture, Roney says. “There’s no permission from me or any others. I’m not a vet. I’m not an expert in animal behaviour. They’re trained professionals. I’m a not-for- profit manager.”
The Toronto Humane Society’s chief veterinarian, Steve Sheridan, didn’t return requests for an interview. However, at least two current veterinarians say they don’t object to management’s interference.
Vivian Unger, for instance, says, “I don’t mind speaking to a supervisor” about euthanasia cases. Rob Rock says, “Management helps me do my job.”

Unger recently went to Trow to discuss an 8-week-old golden retriever puppy, paralyzed with neurological problems. Trow authorized him to be driven to Guelph to be seen by a neurologist and even to buy a new “cart” — akin to a wheelchair for dogs — a cost of thousands of dollars.
“We had a canine cart here in the building someone had donated to us, and his attitude was, `Don’t even think about giving this dog an old cart, get him a brand new one,'” says Unger.
This is the second time Trow has been president of the society. The last time, in 1982-83, a group of directors alleged mismanagement and poor animal care and called for a city investigation. The city ended up taking over its management for a year and assuming control of dog catching.
The society’s chief veterinarian at the time, Angelo Filiplic, also shocked the public, saying the society itself “should be charged with cruelty to animals.” He said a new foster care program and a policy to no longer kill pregnant or newborn strays was leading to overcrowding and rampant disease, and animals were dying. An independent commission concurred.
Nevertheless, Trow says the commission and Filiplic have been “proven wrong.” It was the start of animal foster care, in which animals are placed in homes as they wait for adoption. “Every shelter, every pound, now has foster care programs. Our board was visionary.”
Current staff members say that since the strike began in February, management has hired more replacement workers, and the facility is cleaner.
But certain policies are still causing concern. Several former staff members say that animals are being taken in and placed in the adoption room sometimes without screening first by a vet, and that some strays are not being held long enough for owners to come by and find them.
Others are concerned about one of the society’s main mandates: to investigate claims of animal cruelty.
Linda Vitarelli, a licensed animal cruelty inspector who is on strike, says her department went from four full-time investigators three years ago to just herself when the strike began.
There is now just one “agent” whose sole job is investigations. Unlike “inspectors,” agents can investigate but cannot lay criminal code cruelty charges without an inspector’s approval.
Veterinarian Sue Carstairs says there were problems with the wildlife. By the time she resigned from the society last July, she says management had “basically closed” the wildlife centre. Trained staff had either retired or were reassigned, and weren’t replaced, Carstairs says.
Sandra Prins, a veterinary technician who resigned last January, says the technicians were asked to take on the wildlife work.
“We had no training with respect to wildlife,” she says. “I touched a baby racoon maybe once in my life.” She called the unit “an absolute mess. Sometimes there wouldn’t be anyone to clean or feed there.”
Carstairs says some animals were admitted without seeing a vet. She says her decision to leave was fuelled by seeing baby birds, which should be fed every 15 to 30 minutes, being kept in shoeboxes and fed only three times a day.

“They’ll starve to death,” Carstairs says.
“When I couldn’t do anything to make it better, I decided not to work there anymore.”
Trow shows a visitor a courtyard that houses three cages filled with baby racoons. A worker is scooping wet food into a garbage bin.
“Does this look closed to you?” he says with a laugh.
Turning to the employee, he says, “You’re not working, I guess.”
But a highly respected wildlife rehabilitation agency remains dissatisfied with the care the society is providing to wildlife, and last month decided to cancel a five-figure contract it had with the society to take in wild animals from the charity.
Earth Rangers, based in Woodbridge, Ont., took in the animals. Before being transferred, they were to have been first stabilized — given fluids, or pain medication — at the society.
However, Earth Rangers found that the society was providing improper care of animals, says wildlife director Kip Parker. Animals arrived there from the society that should have been euthanized right away, he says, while others weren’t transferred in a timely way. “Many of them had to be euthanized,” Parker says.
Parker was one of the first staff members at the Toronto Humane Society’s wildlife centre when it opened in the mid-1980s (after Trow’s first stint as president). He left the society in 1987.
“When I looked at their program to assess what they were doing, I was distressed. It was now gutted, trained staff had been removed, space had been cut back severely. It’s been destroyed. It’s disheartening. It makes me extremely sad, and it doesn’t provide care for wildlife in the City of Toronto.”
For his part, Trow says the contract with Earth Rangers was cancelled on a mutual basis, and that the society was finding it expensive and inconvenient to constantly transport the animals through the city.
The Toronto Humane Society has been plagued by internecine fighting for decades. The dysfunction dates as far back as the 1970s, with boards of directors repeatedly swept from office by “rebels.”
After Trow left in the early 1980s, radical animal-rights activists gained control. The society faced an audit by Ontario’s Public Trustee and lost its affiliate status with the OSPCA (then the Ontario Humane Society), although that affiliation has since been restored.
In 2001, the city stripped the society of its role as the city pound for stray animals.
It was also during this time that management attempted to implement changes to society bylaws to bring its governance in line with modern standards — and possibly end the dysfunction for good.
Two changes considered vital were term limits and a more stringent separation between the board and

shelter management. Term limits would have prevented people from sitting on the board indefinitely, as is the case with some current board members, to ensure fresh ideas, says Bruce Reid, a former board member involved in the changes.
“There were people that weren’t contributing to the betterment of the Humane Society but didn’t want to leave,” Reid says. “It was a bit like the Senate, actually.”
But management’s attempt to remove voting privileges from general members without telling them ended with a judge invalidating all the changes. Eventually, the progressive board members were voted out, and Trow returned as president.
Most non-profit organizations now have term limits, says Agnes Meinhard, director of the Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies at Ryerson University. Indeed, the Ottawa Humane Society does. Without them, research has shown, “the leadership becomes very possessive and the transparency of what the organization does and what they’re doing is compromised,” Meinhard says.
Current and former staff now say Trow is heavily involved in the day-to-day operations of the shelter. That’s unacceptable for an organization the size of the Toronto Humane Society, Meinhard says, where management should be clearly separated from the board, which is there only to set policies.
Board presidents should restrict their contact to an executive director — in this case, the shelter’s three managers. Trow “shouldn’t even be even talking to the vets,” Meinhard says.
Without such separation, staff might get confused and feel they have two bosses. It’s also harder to oversee an organization’s finances. “The more you micromanage from a board level, the more dysfunction you can get,” she says.
The system is “working fine,” Trow responds. “Amending the bylaws is the last thing we need to worry about here. They work well. They’re the members’ bylaws, and I’m not going to interfere” with them.
As he shows his visitor the adoption cages in the shelter, Trow beams when he talks about how the place has evolved. He says that in the 1920s, nearly 100 per cent of the cats brought in were killed. Now it’s the opposite.
Trow walks past an isolation room housing a dog whose intestines are rife with the debilitating parvovirus. “You see?” he says, peering through the small window. “We can save him.”