Again, much discussion over the meaning of wilful and reckless
Case seemed to focus on technical wording; who was the "owner", what was "wilful", etc. Concluded there was negligence (in the civil sense) but not satisfied BRD that they "wilfully permitted to be caused unnecessary pain to the dog by failure to provide a suitably sized collar."
Dogs belonged to neighbour, and had been terrorizing the accused and her family for years; accused was remorseful; judge says not an act of cruelty but of "desperation"
Court focused on lack of food regarding four horses only because of evidentiary issues
Case turned on meaning of "malice" in old section; judge decided the actions were not malicious. Section cited is from previous version of the Criminal Code.
3 youths were drunk and one testified they stepped on the dog accidentally. Witnesses saw from a window, but it was dark.
This case involved the accused being in contempt of court. The accused was found to be in contempt during another trial. That trial was regarding the accused hitting and stabbing a police dog in the head with a screwdriver. He had been charged with break and enter and cruelty to an animal.
This was an appeal from a Provincial Court Ruling of a private prosecution. Walters alleged that Red River Exhibitions was promoting alligator fighting. Upon review of video evidence, courts found that alligators were not fighting at all. Sections cited are from previous version of the Criminal Code.
Very little facts – the accused failed to provide adequate medical care and food to four dogs and then failed to appear for a court date. The accused was then given several fines.