According to the veterinarian the dog “looked well cared for.” However, there was a serious injury to her neck. Her skin was broken and the injury circled around her entire neck. Dr. Martyn testified that there was an “extremely noticeable smell” coming from the dog as a result of infection. Dr. Martyn described the wound as being “quite infected.” She testified that the injury could have been caused by a rope being placed tightly around the dog’s neck and cutting into the dog’s skin. Dr. Martyn indicated that the injury was approximately eight days to two weeks old.Mr. Bennett agreed that he had placed a rope around the dog’s neck, but denied that he had secured it “tightly” or that he saw any signs of the dog being in pain or discomfort.
After coming home and seeing his girlfriend and infant eating without him, he threw food at his girlfriend, and then punched and kicked her. Then he picked up a cigarette roller, and threw it at a kitten, striking the animal, and cutting its lip open. The Accused then tore a door off its hinges, and threatened to kill Ms. Power if she went out that evening. Prior history of violence towards the current Complainant.
Mr. White threatened to kill his former girlfriend’s two cats and then killed one and injured another. The cats were found in pillowcases.
Accused arrived at mother’s house as complainant’s dog was defecating on lawn. Complainant did not have bag to pick up faeces. Accused and complainant had argument and accused said he would "shoot" or "kill" complainant and his dog. Accused was charged with two counts of uttering threats contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) and (c) of Criminal Code.
Ms. Bellows treated her neighbours antagonistically. She repeatedly made threats to harm them and their dog. She was duly convicted of these charges under s. 264.1(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Criminal Code.
Connors was convicted of uttering threats to kill an animal contrary to s. 264.1(1))(c), of the Criminal Code. He appealed this conviction but failed to raise questions of law. His leave to appeal was denied.
The appellant pleaded guilty before Magistrate Cramm of the Provincial Court to a charge under Sec. 400(a) of the Criminal Code of killing cattle. The Magistrate sentenced Hunt to nine months imprisonment, from which sentence he now appeals. Leave to appeal is granted because, on the face of it, the sentence appears to be a severe one, and there is evidence that the appellant and his accomplice voluntarily confessed their crime to the owner shortly after committing it. However, while severe, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the sentence as imposed.
His statements were inadmissible because of an improper inducement and in violation of his right to contact counsel in accordance with section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Greeley admitted to having killed the dog but argued that the killing was justified, as the dog had chased and jumped on Greeley’s son, causing him to need four stitches in his head. Greeley claimed that when Roche opened the door the dog lunged at him and he was required to subdue the dog. He started strangling the dog until it stopped struggling and until he died. The court noted that it seems probable that the dog lunged at Mr. Greeley and that the defendant interpreted this as an attack. The defendant plead non-guilty.
Fifteen-year-old boy pleaded guilty to charge of causing suffering or injury to a cat. Boy sentenced to six months secure custody and further eight months’ open custody consecutive for failing to comply with probation order. Boy also placed on 12 months’ probation. Boy had prior criminal record and history of drug abuse and satanic practices. Boy appealing sentence on ground disposition prohibited by statute. Appeal allowed. Six months’ secure custody for probation offence and six months open custody for charge of causing suffering to animal.