This is primarily a family law case to determine custody of the couple’s five year old daughter. The couple had separated in January 2020, but remained in the same home together until the child’s mother alleged that she had to leave due to family violence perpetrated by her husband, the claimant. The claimant refutes the allegation, claiming that it was his wife who was aggressive and verbally abusive toward him.
The Court heard evidence of the claimant’s interest in cockfighting which included keeping souvenir spurs in his home, friends who appear to have run cockfighting arenas or raise roosters, and suggestions that he himself may have raised chicks or roosters used in cockfighting. When the claimant’s lawyer attempted to dismiss this as a cultural interest, the judge denounced that as “not acceptable. Cockfighting is vicious and cruel. In Canada, it is a criminal offence” (para.41).
The Court made a conduct order under the Family Law Act stating that:
“1. The claimant shall not expose the child to any birds or paraphernalia associated with cockfighting and he shall not allow others to do so;
2. The claimant shall not allow the child to be on any property where cockfighting has occurred or may occur, whether or not the cockfighting takes place when she is present on the property;
3. The claimant is not to keep or raise roosters to be used in cockfighting or to be given to persons associated with cockfighting;
4. The claimant will not allow the child to have contact with roosters or chicks intended for cockfighting; and
5. The claimant will store any cockfighting paraphernalia, including “souvenirs”, safely and in such a manner that the child cannot access them” (para. 45).