This is an appeal by Kathy Singh against her conviction and sentence imposed on the 29th of March, 2000 relating to a charge under s. 446(1)(c) .The case started with a complaint relating to a sick cat at the Pet Sanctuary. After following the removal procedures set out in the Act, the cat was delivered to a local veterinarian for treatment. The veterinarian treated the cat but was unable to restore the cat to health; the cat had to be euthanized. The costs of the treatment billed to the Ontario Humane Society was $860.12. The appellant raised numerous grounds of appeal against her conviction, including the unreasonableness of the verdict, reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge and the failure to hold a voir dire respecting common law voluntariness of a statement made by the appellant to the inspector. There was no prejudice to the appellant’s fair trial interest that could be characterized as a miscarriage of justice by the admission of the appellant’s statement as to ownership of the Pet Sanctuary to the inspector without the required voir dire.
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 throughout the weekend while he was being treated in what was an unsuccessful effort to reverse the damage Perrault had inflicted.
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.
Inspector Wilkinson gave evidence at this trial that he had concluded by October 15, 2012 the animals on Mr. Hunter’s property were in “immediate distress” and that he would attend at the Hunter property pursuant to S, 12(6) of the OSPCA Act without a warrant. Defendant disagreed that there was evidence of “immediate distress” and this Court came to the same conclusion. In that way, all the pictures of the animals and property were obtained illegally.
Sentencing of the accused, Small, who pled guilty to the charge of cruelty to animals. She had locked the dog in a cage and withheld his food. Small had no criminal record.
Blankenburg and his wife were camping at Rose Lake. A dog belonging to a fellow camper wandered onto his site. Blankenburg claims he thought he was about to be attacked, and yelled at the dog to run off. Enraged, he told the dog’s guardians that he would shoot the dog if it attacked him.
A woman called the RCMP for help in Old Crow, Yukon because the accused arrived at her house with a bottle of liquor and a puppy. He was drunk. He poured her a drink and picked up the puppy “stretched the neck and tail to the point where the dog squealed” and threatened the woman “or you will look like this” (if she didn’t accept the drink). She managed to get out of the house under the premise of getting firewood. He told her he would kill the puppy. She called the police. When they arrived they found the puppy burning in the stove. The autopsy revealed he had been killed by a severe blow to the head. The judge commented at page 603 “I do not think there is any culture, here in Old Crow or elsewhere in Canada, that suggests it is acceptable to treat animals in this way….”
Again, much discussion over the meaning of wilful and reckless
Case seemed to focus on technical wording; who was the "owner", what was "wilful", etc. Concluded there was negligence (in the civil sense) but not satisfied BRD that they "wilfully permitted to be caused unnecessary pain to the dog by failure to provide a suitably sized collar."