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).

 

R. v. Perrault, 2007 NSPC 14

Mr. Perrault was charged after it was determined that he had cut the penis and testicles off a kitten acquired by him for his 10 year old daughter. The kitten’s distress continued through the weekend he was mutilated and while he was being treated in what was an unsuccessful effort to reverse the damage Mr. Perrault had inflicted.

R v. Olendy, [2001] O.J. No. 1957

Sentencing hearing of the accused Olendy. Olendy was convicted of wilfully causing pain to his guide dog. The dog was a 90 pound Labrador. Olendy lost his sight in a motor vehicle accident. He properly fed the dog and took it out to play. However, he repeatedly yelled at the dog and hit it. Olendy expressed no remorse for his actions. He previously abused the dog in 1996.

R v. McHugh, 1965 CarswellNS 7

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.

R v. Denny 2009 CarswellNS 664, 2009 NSPC 63

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.

R. v. Lupton, 2005 NSPC 11

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.

R v Elliott, 2009 NSPC 5

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.

R. v. Murphy, 2010 NSPC 4 (CanLII)

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.

R. v. Vaillancourt, 2003 CarswellNS 493

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.

R v Wagner, 1986 CarswellNS 626

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".