R. v. Singh, 2001 CarswellOnt 457

This is an appeal by Kathy Singh against her conviction and sentence imposed on the 29th of March, 2000 relating to a charged under s.446(1)(c) .The case started with a complaint relating to a sick cat at the Pet Sanctuary. After following the removal procedures set out in the Act, the cat was delivered to a local veterinarian for treatment. The veterinarian treated the cat but was unable to restore the cat to health; the cat had to be euthanized. The costs of the treatment billed to the Ontario Humane Society was $860.12. The appellant raised numerous grounds of appeal against her conviction, including the unreasonableness of the verdict, reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge and the failure to hold a voir dire respecting common law voluntariness of a statement made by the appellant to the inspector.

R v Fagundes, 2006 CanLII 5869 (ON CA)

Fagundes neglected farm animals and harbored stolen property on his land.

R v. Stewart, [2008] O.J. No. 5493

Sentencing of two accused for animal cruelty. The accused resided in a small apartment with 50 cats and kittens and several dogs. There was feces all over the place. Soiled newspapers and towels littered the floor. There was no water available in any bowls at the time of entry, and the available food was far less than adequate. A high percentage of the animals were diseased, in distress, and suffering. There was a failure to provide adequate medication for the majority of cats and kittens. There was a severe shortage of water, food and litter boxes available to the cats and dogs in the apartment. The accused Wilson, 61, was married to the accused Stewart, 60. Wilson’s work record was sporadic and he was presently unemployed. He and the co-defendant were homeless and residing in a motel at this time. Both had limited financial means.

R v Parent, 2003 CarswellOnt 6013

Parent apparently made a ‘poor’ decision to chop off his dog’s tail, causing him severe pain. The facts aren’t clear in this case. It seems that Parent was not wantingly or deliberately abusive of the animals in his care. The SPCA also asked for a court order to have his pets spayed and neutered, but the judge refused – since there was no connection between the offence and this concern.

R. v. Freymond, 2006 CarswellOnt 8887, 139 C.R.R. (2d) 74

The accused argues that the OSPCA, Renfrew County branch, conducted a warrantless search of their kennel. The inspector observed that there was a large number of dogs in a gravel pit. The dogs in question were attached to a series of chains. The dogs were placed in such a way that they would not have contact with one another presumably to avoid them fighting with one another. There were a total of forty-five husky dogs at the location and that apart from the dogs who were under the flatbed, there was no shade for the dogs in question. The water bowls for the dogs were empty and the location was fowl smelling due to the heat and the large pile of chicken feathers and chicken parts as well as dog feces. The warrantless search was illegal since the inspector hadn’t seen an animal in immediate distress before entering the locked property.

R. V. Power, 2003 CanLII 20379 (ON CA)

Appeal from the Crown on the question of sentence. The respondent and two others captured a healthy domestic cat belonging to an unknown third party and took it to an abandoned building. They proceeded to torture and finally kill the helpless animal. The respondent videotaped this process. The police discovered the skinned body of the cat hanging in the refrigerator of the accused. The cat’s head was in a zip lock bag in the freezer.

R v. Rodgers, 2012 ONCJ 808 (CanLII)

During a domestic dispute with his girlfriend, Rodgers, inebriated, threw her puppy down a flight of stairs, chased it, injured it, and killed it.

R v. Pryor, 2008 CarswellOnt 8602

Accused was convicted on four counts of causing unnecessary suffering or cruelty to animals, contrary to s. 446(1)(c) of Criminal Code, following investigation launched by Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“SPCA”). Accused appealed convictions on ground that trial judge misapprehended evidence. Appeal dismissed. Accused received suspended sentence and three years’ probation, and restitution order payable to SPCA was made in sum of $25, 511.56. Accused appealed sentence. Appeal allowed with respect to the restitution order.

R v Comber, 1975 CarswellOnt 1091

Appeal by Crown, defendant acquitted at trial. Comber killed a dog that he believed was a stray, in a wildlife conservation area. He first injured it accidentally, then killed it to put it out of its misery. The dog belonged to Russel Wark. The judge held that the sincere and honest belief by the accused that the dogs are strays is not a legal justification for killing them. If the evidence indicates the dogs are dangerous to human beings or animals, lawful justification may be present but in the absence of evidence of such danger, there is no defence of legal justification under Code s. 401; however, that killing a dog to put him out of his misery did indeed constitute colour of right defense in this case.

R. v. Munroe, 2010 ONCJ 226

Mr. Monroe inflected multiple injuries of differenttypes over a prolonged period on the two Boston terrier belonging to his girlfriend. One was left badly injured and one died. The autopsy revealed multiple injuries and trauma.