R v Irving, 2013 SKPC 101

Puppy mill: 57 dogs in muddy yard without adequate food, shelter, or care. Failed to meet generally accepted practices for dog kennel. Charged but found not guilty of two counts under the Criminal Code. Found guilty of one count of causing animals to be in distress contrary to the Animal Protection Act.

R v Loerzel, 2007 SKCA 107

The Loerzels operated an elk farm (Trad Industries). After government officials and members of the Saskatchewan SPCA visited the farm, saw starving animals; charges were laid. The Loerzels and Trad were charged with causing or permitting elk to be or to continue to be in distress. They were convicted after a lengthy trial and each fined $3,500. Appeal dismissed. Strict liability offence.

R v Hiebert, 2003 172 Man.R. (2d) 73 57 W.C.B. (2d) 242 (MB Proc. Crt)

A husband and wife owned and operated what appears to be a “puppy mill” operation. Several dogs had died as a result of the treatment and most were living in deplorable conditions + they operated without a license.

R. v. Menard (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 458 (Que. C.A.)

The accused owns a business (“Contrôle Sanitaire des Animaux Enreg.”). He takes care of euthanizing stray animals that are not reclaimed after 3 days. Unfortunately, his euthanasia system, powered by a motor, causes pain and burns to the mucous membranes and respiratory tract of the animals. The defendant could have easily, at a reasonable cost, better equipped his system so that animals were not subjected to such pain and suffering.

R v Amorim, 1994 CarswellOnt 7366

Amorim kept a Dobermann Pinscher puppy in his backyard, tied to a chain. The dog was miserable and howled all day and night. There were collections of faeces nearby the chain, and it was alleged that she had been provided with inadequate food and water.

R. V. Clarke, 2001 CanLII 12453 (NL PC)

A volunteer for the SPCA felt that the dogs under Clarke’s care were not being properly taken care of or sheltered. After noticing there was no apparent food or water on site she proceeded to seize them. She was not in position to do so considering that she isn’t an independent investigator. The evidence is not sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that either accused wilfully caused the dogs any pain, suffering or injury.