On April 28, 2019 two witnesses observed a woman kick a dog with excessive force several times. The dog was “pinned up against the railing” and made a yell or a screech. One witness said the dog was medium sized and looked like a pitbull. They saw the accused carrying a car seat with a baby, and returned inside an apartment with the dog, the baby, and another man.
The witnesses called the Société protectrice des animaux (SPA) who obtained a search warrant and searched the identified address. They located the accused, who lived at the apartment, with her partner, an eight-month-old baby, and a medium sized pitbull. The accused was charged with wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to a dog contrary to s 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The trial judge “was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a woman had caused pain to a dog without necessity” (para. 48), and the accused was convicted.
The accused appealed the decision arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that her identification based on the circumstantial evidence was not the only reasonable conclusion. She argued that trial judge ignored her testimony which was a general denial. The accused alleged she had no memory of the day as it was a regular day, and further argued that there were other plausible inferences other than that she had kicked the dog.
The appeal judge did not believe the appellant’s denial raised a reasonable doubt. It was determined that the trial judge had properly assessed the facts – that the accused lived at the apartment, had a dog similar to the one observed and had a baby and partner – and correctly stated the law regarding circumstantial evidence.
The appeal judge found that there were no other reasonable inferences than the one the trial judge came to, and that the conclusion that the appellant was the person who kicked the dog was reasonable.
The appeal was dismissed.