R v. Fuller [1994] O.J. No. 4285

For $1000, accused assisted owner of a horse in attempting to kill the horse by use of a sledgehammer, hitting the horse over the head at least three times. The accused gave various versions of the events which were not believed by the police or the judge.

R v. Collier [2003] O.J. No. 3743

Animal control officers found Collier’s dog in her basement with a festering open wound. They charged her with cruelty to animals. The dog was taken to a veterinarian, who determined that it had been in that condition for one to two years. The dog was put down.

R v Blanchard, 2007 CanLII 52982 (ON SC)

Appeal from a conviction and sentences on two charges of animal cruelty under s.446. The facts at trial showed that during an undercover search operation on Blanchard’s premises, the SPCA discovered various animals in states of neglect. Some of them were dead. Blanchard’s dogs were severely matted.

R. v. Young (July 24, 1997), 1997 CarswellOnt 5998

Accused threatened victim when it was discovered that victim was rightful owner of stolen vehicle he had attempted to purchase. Accused followed up on threat by destroying victim’s barn by fire, causing loss of property and livestock

R. v. Shand, 2007 ONCJ 317

An older family dog was neglected by the busy daughter who owned it, and by other family members who were in a financial crisis that led to eviction from their home. The dog was overweight, there was some skin scalding on the thighs from urine, there were extensive skin sores across the dog’s back and hind quarter, the nails were overgrown and it had very poor dental health. The circumstances show a complete absence of basic regular care for the dog. The veterinary evidence indicates that the injuries to the dog’s skin result from the lack of basic care including brushing the coat and regular bathing.

R v. T.B, [2003] O.J. No. 6250

Defendant brought his dog to a party and attempted to use his dog as a weapon (was also charged with assault using a weapon). Defendant indicated in some form for his dog to attack someone and the person had to use a bottle (broken over the dog’s head) in order for the dog to let go.

R v Abeywickrema, 2010 ONCJ 565 (CanLII)

The defendant placed a condom on his dog’s penis to stop him from ‘humping and ejaculating.’ The dog was severely injured as a result and had to be euthanized.

R v Gaudin, 2006 CarswellOnt 6707

Facts Unknown

R. v. Marshall, 2013 ONCJ 61

Steven Marshall has been charged with eight counts of animal cruelty. Mr. Marshall abused, injured and finally killed 3 cats rescued by his roommate. The post-mortem evidence is that the animals had been bludgeoned to death. The extent of the injuries and their broken necks speak to a high level of violence.

R. v. Galloro, 2006 ONCJ 263

The accused were husband and wife (Mr. and Mrs. Galloro) who owned 17 dogs, one of which was in the late stages of pregnancy. OSPCA issued a compliance order to take the dog to a veterinary hospital for emergency treatment, and in the end, inspectors took the dog after the accused failed to comply.

They were both charged with wilfully failing to provide suitable food and care for this pregnant dog, under s.446(1)(a). Both were charged with causing suffering by failing to seek medical attention for the pregnant dog, under s.446(1)(c). Mrs. Galloro was also charged with wilfully causing suffering by cutting the dog’s ears, under s.446(1)(a).

Evidence shows that Mrs. Galloro was the sole caregiver who subjected the pregnant dog to long-term neglect and wilfully failed to provide dog with sustainable or adequate food and care despite being previously warned.

Mrs. Galloro admitted to intentionally cutting the dog’s ears with scissors to relieve what she thought was blood buildup in the dog’s head which caused seizures. Vet witness said the seizures were associated with pregnancy and there was no medical basis for cutting her ears. Both accused knew that immediate emergency veterinary care was suggested by a veterinary doctor and required by compliance order, and both continued and extended the dog’s suffering by refusing to bring the dog to emergency care. Mrs. Galloro willfully caused pain to the dog since she knew that cutting the dog’s ears was not necessary and had ready access to proper vet care.

With respect to the pregnant dog, Mrs. Galloro was found guilty on all three counts. Mr. Galloro was found guilty only on count two.

In regards to the other 16 dogs in their care, both were found guilty under s.446(1)(a).