R v Taker, 2016 NLPC 1315A00249

Ms. Taker was found to have had over one 140 cats, plus one parrot, living in her residence, which were all seized and removed by a local rescue due to her inability to care of this quantity of animals.

The vast majority of these cats resided in urine and feces soaked conditions, suffered from flea infestations, were emaciated, severely ill and unneutered. These animals came into Taker’s care when she found a number of cats and kittens in a shed and took them into her residence to care for them, however, their numbers quickly increased out of Taker’s control. Five of the animals (four cats and a parrot) were Taker’s own personal pets and were noted to be well cared for and healthy, and were therefore permitted to stay with her.

Taker pleaded guilty to one count under s. 18(2) of the Animal Health and Protection Act for causing these animals to be in distress. The Crown sought a fine in the range of $1000-1500, a lifetime prohibition on ownership of any more than five animals and declined to seek costs for the care of the animals that were seized.

R v Savova, 2012 ABPC 121

The accused went to the vet for special food for her cat, who she thought was pregnant. The vet suggested she bring the cat in, which she did. The vet said the cat was sick and either had to have surgery or be put down. The accused said she was going to another clinic to get a second opinion. She did not do this. The vet called the Humane Society who contacted the accused saying she had to act quickly. The vet performed surgery but the cat died on the operating table.

The accused was charged with causing distress and failing to provide adequate care. The Crown and Defence suggested a common law peace bond for one year requiring the accused to get psychiatric counseling and prohibiting her from owning a pet. She did not want to attend counseling. The court considered if they could and should make such an order.

The court found it did not have jurisdiction to impose the peace bond for a provincial regulatory matter. The court cited concerns that contravening the peace bond would open the accused to criminal sanctions when she had not been charged with a criminal offence in the first place. The court went on to state that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not impose a peace bond because it is clear that the accused does not want to attend counseling and it is not appropriate to order this in a probation order. In addition, the condition was not connected to the offence but to her “rude emotional outbursts”. It was also noted that if granted, it would be filed in the federal CPIC database and have serious implications on her freedom to travel and obtain employment.

R. v Sanaee, 2015, ABPC 140906538P1

Accused ran an organization called “BARK” which he held to be a last resort to reform dogs with problem behaviors before going to a shelter to be put down. The accused made use of cattle prods to discipline the dogs and he put the dogs in positions that encouraged aggression. After complaints were made, several dogs were seized. The accused had a license only for 3 dogs and no overnights, but he had somewhere between 10 and 13 and was keeping them overnight. In addition, there was an accumulation of urine and feces were the dogs were kept. It was the accused’s belief that it was reasonable to use a cattle prod for discipline purposes. The accused was found guilty.

The judge emphasized Parliament’s intentions and that the offence is considered to be a serious one. Denunciation and deterrence are important goals. Mitigating factors were his lack of a criminal record and that the case had received a lot of negative media attention. Aggravating circumstances were the position of trust, his unwillingness to accept that what he did was wrong, and that he was found to be untruthful when making statements during trial.

R v Cunningham and Whiffen, 2011 BCPC 0358

Cunningham travaillait à la ferme de Whiffen où il s’occupait des chevaux. Whiffen a acquis un cheval pour que ses enfants puissent faire de l’équitation. Le cheval est devenu décharné et il n’était pas capable de manger convenablement. Après consultation avec un vétérinaire, on a décidé de l’euthanasier. Whiffen a pendu le cheval en le suspendant à une excavatrice.

R v Ruvinsky, 1998 CarswellOnt 3485

Ruvinsky, un gérant de bar clandestin à Toronto, aurait permis à ses chiens de lécher et de renifler de la cocaïne. Une ancienne travailleuse du sexe, « Crazy Jennie » Rowden, a avisé les policiers que Ruvinsky avait des relations sexuelles avec son doberman. Avec l’aide de la police, la Toronto Humane Society (THS) a saisi les chiens sans mandat. Les preuves apportées par « Crazy Jennie » n’ont pas tenu en cour. Il a été déterminé que la THS avait agi de bonne foi, malgré l’absence de mandat, et que ses actions étaient justifiées par l’urgence et la gravité des allegations.

R. v. Singh, 2001 CarswellOnt 457

Appel de Kathy Singh contre une déclaration de culpabilité et la peine imposée le 29 mars 2000 à l’égard d’une accusation en vertu de l’article 446(1)(c). Cette cause provient d’une plainte concernant un chat malade au Pet Sanctuary. Après avoir retiré l’animal conformément aux dispositions de la Loi, le chat a été amené chez un vétérinaire local pour y être soigné. Le vétérinaire a traité le chat, mais il n’a pas réussi à lui rendre la santé et on a dû l’euthanasier. Le coût des traitements (860,12 $) a été facturé à l’Ontario Humane Society. L’appelante a soulevé plusieurs points pour tenter de contrer sa déclaration de culpabilité, notamment les suivants : caractère déraisonnable du verdict, crainte raisonnable de partialité de la part du juge qui présidait le procès, non tenue d’un voir-dire relativement à une affirmation faite à l’inspecteur par l’appelant. L’appelante n’a pas subi de préjudice qui l’aurait empêchée de subir un procès équitable à cause d’une erreur judiciaire découlant de l’admission de la déclaration de l’appelante à l’endroit de l’inspecteur concernant la propriété du Pet Sanctuary sans voir-dire.

R. v. Perrault, 2007 NSPC 14

Perrault a été mis en accusation après qu’on ait confirmé qu’il avait coupé le pénis et les testicules d’un chaton qu’il avait acheté pour sa fille de 10 ans. La détresse du chaton s’est poursuivie pendant tout le weekend lors duquel il a été mutilé puis quand on a tenté de le traiter. Il a été impossible de corriger les dommages corporels infligés au chaton par M. Perrault.

R. v. Lupton, 2005 NSPC 11

Un grand danois a été saisi devant la maison où il était attaché avec une très courte laisse, sans eau ni nourriture. Il était décharné, léthargique, pelage terne, os saillants.

R v. Small, [2005] O.J. No. 1430

Détermination de la peine de l’accusée, Small, qui a plaidé coupable à une accusation de cruauté envers les animaux. Elle avait enfermé son chien dans une cage et l’avait privé de nourriture. Small n’avait pas de casier judiciaire.

R v Allen, 1974 CarswellNB 33

Alors qu’il était en état d’ivresse, Allen a tué une génisse (une jeune vache) qui appartenait à une autre personne. Il avait originalement été condamné à une peine de deux ans de détention. Il a interjeté appel.