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.
Accused convicted of uttering threats against her neighbours including threats to poison their dog. While she had no intention of carrying out the threat she did intend the threats to be taken seriously.
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.
Accused was convicted after trial of uttering threats to kill an animal. He received a conditional discharge and 1 year probation. There had been issues with the dogs on the complainant’s property. The accused told the complainants that if they didn’t get rid of the dogs he was going to and he hates dogs and he was going to kill the dogs if they didn’t clean up after them.
Accused testified and denied the threats. The trial judge accepted the evidence of the Crown witnesses and convicted the accused.
Trial judge’s sentence of a conditional discharge and one year of unsupervised probation is upheld.
Defendant’s leave to appeal is 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.
Appeal from sentence of 9 months jail for killing cattle. Appeal dismissed. He had a lengthy criminal record.
Killing a small dog by hanging it from a tree , a chain had been wrapped around its neck and it had been left there to die (breathlessness).
Statements were deemed 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.
Stay of proceedings ordered July 2003.
Trial of the accused, Greeley, who was charged with killing Roche’s dog. 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 attended at Roche’s home and was greeted at the door by Roche and the dog. 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. Rather than stopping the strangling, Greeley continued until the dog was clearly dead. Greeley presented evidence that indicated that the dog had, on numerous previous occasions, chased other individuals in the neighbourhood, including the child who was injured. The accused plead non-guilty.
Held: Greeley was convicted. It was clear that Greeley initially had the right to use force against the dog to prevent it from continuing to attack him when he met Roche at the front door. However, having immobilized the dog on the floor and the dog having ceased to struggle, Greeley should have stopped his application of force. Continuing to strangle the dog was not a reasonable or justifiable course of action. Although Roche had been negligent in allowing his aggressive dog to roam and neighbourhood, Greeley’s action in killing the dog in the manner that he did was an excessive use of force and not reasonable or legally justifiable.
Appeal from sentence.
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.
Youth was convicted under the Young Offenders Act of causing injury to an animal and breach of probation. Facts of the offence aren’t clear except that it involved a cat and the accused practiced satanism. He was sentenced to 6 months secure custody for the injury and 8 months open custody for the breach. He had a lengthy youth court record. The sentence was reduced to 6 months secure custody and 12 months probation. The trial judge had intended to impose the maximum sentence but the maximum was 6 months secure. The trial judge’s reasoning was appropriate to ensure a rehabilitative sentence.
Accused 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.
Fowlie attempted to ‘train’ his young horse by tying a rope around his neck, and pulling it behind a wagon (breathlessness). Fowlie repeatedly hit him with a plank of wood. After killing the horse, he dumped the carcass in the woods.
Fowlie was observed dragging his horse behind his truck. He stated that he was attempting to train the colt that was difficult to handle. He was also observed hitting the colt with a piece of wood. The matter was reported to an animal shelter and the police. The police discovered the dead colt on Fowlie’s property with a rope around her neck. The veterinarian discovered that the animal had been beaten and showed signs of severe trauma around the neck. No cause of death could be established.
Held: Fowlie was sentenced to 90 days imprisonment on an intermittent basis. The sentence would be served on weekends to allow Fowlie to take care of his farm. The killing of the horse was a cruel and despicable act.
Officers attended the residence after receiving calls about spousal abuse.
The death of the two dogs was ascertained by a veterinary pathologist who submitted a report to the crown. The defendant is arguing for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, on the basis that his rights were violated under section 11(b) of the Charter for undue delay.
Stay of proceedings on all of the charges.
Allen, intoxicated, killed a heifer (female cow) belonging to another person. He was originally sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. He appealed.
Appeal allowed, carceral sentence reduced to 6 months.
The appellant was previously found guilty of having committed 7 offences, including one count of wilfully killing cattle paragraph 444(a) of the Criminal Code. Cote then appealed the verdict on the basis that the presiding judge committed reversible error under s. 686(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code (issues with jury instructions).
The appeal was dismissed.