Appeal by the informant from an acquittal on a charge under Code s. 387(1) (a). McHugh was the owner of a wounded race horse. He allegedly neglected to provide the injured horse with proper care and attention – failing to follow instructions from a veterinarian, and providing the horse with inadequate conditions of food and shelter. The horse was euthanized after not responding well to McHugh’s healing techniques.
Accused charged with, inter alia, uttering threats, causing unnecessary injury to dog, possession of stolen property and breach of probation. Accused suffered from schizophrenia, paranoid type, and on only expert psychiatric evidence was floridly ill. Crown sought not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) finding, while accused sought determinate correctional sentence.
A Great Dane was seize from a house where he was tied to a very short tether in front. He was emaciated, dull, lethargic, with no water or food available and extremely bony.
Elliott operated a farm with a herd of about 75 cattle in adequate conditions, but SPCA located about 23 dead cattle carcasses on his property. Elliott claimed he could not sell any cattle due to contamination by military aircraft that flew over his property. Elliott was hoping that the Department of National Defense would compensate him for the contaminated cattle. The SPCA provided hay for Elliot’s cattle and advised Elliot to reduce the size of his herd. It became clear that the accused was waiting for all but a select few of his cattle to die. Some months later the SPCA seized 138 cattle and euthanized those that were unable to survive.
It was found that the accused failed to provide adequate food, water, shelter, and care for his cattle. Elliott decided on a course of action that willfully caused unnecessary pain, suffering, and injury to his cattle. He was found to be the owner of the cattle, and was solely responsible for their well-being, which he conceded in many letters he wrote to the SPCA. Elliott failed to provide any evidence of testing to show contamination of his cattle, and the neighbouring farm had not suffered from the alleged contamination problems. Thus, Elliott was found guilty on both counts.
Mr. Murphy shot the dog of his neighborhood when the dog escaped and arrived on his property where his chicken were roaming free. This was not the first time the dog had paid a visit. On other occasions the dog had come over and killed, at various times, 10 to 15 of his chickens. The dog survived but had to be amputated. Plea: defence of property.
Unknown – this was a constitutional challenge against certain sections of the Provincial act, arguing that the Provincial act created criminal legislation and was therefore ultra vires the Provincial government. Judge strikes down certain portion of Provincial legislation dealing with warrantless searches deeming the language in s.12(4) of the Provincial act to be inconsistent with s.8 of the Charter.
Wagner liked to shoot his gun wildly out of his backyard. He shot and killed his neighbour’s dog. Because there was not sufficient evidence that Wagner knew he was shooting at a dog, his act was deemed not to be "wilfull".
The accused damaged the complainant’s property during a heavy drinking binge with friends. The complainant found a machete on the property and noticed a cut on a calf’s leg. There was evidence at trial that the cattle had been disturbed that night and that there were hairs on the machete consistent with bovine hair. The evidence, however, did not establish which of the men, if any, inflicted the damage to the calf. The circumstances, while highly suspicious, did not meet the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lady, the dog, was emaciated. Her ribs, spine and hip bones were easily visible from a distance. She had lost a whole layer of body fat and her muscle was wasting. Lady was infested by fleas. Two people independently of each other saw Lady chained to a wire behind her owner’s house. The veterinarian testified that the dog weighed 35 pounds. She determined that an appropriate weight for the dog would be somewhere between 50-55 pounds.
The defendant and her cousin J.S. shot a crow with a pellet gun. After the bird fell down, they dragged it along the ground to their backyard. They threw it in the air so that the dog would catch it in its mouth. The crow was still alive and was making painful sound. J.S. testified that he was not on the beach and that the first time he saw the crow was in the yard. It was unclear whether J.S. or her cousin who was the person who mistreated the crow. Judge also clearly highlights that the words pain, suffering or injury are SEPERATE from one another and the crown need not prove all three (must only prove one of them).