R v Irving, 2013 SKPC 101

Accused alleged to have been operating a puppy mill. Animal protection officers seized 82 dogs being housed in a muddy yard without adequate food, shelter, or care. Failed to meet generally accepted practices for dog kennel.

Charged but found not guilty of two counts under the Criminal Code.

Found guilty of one count of causing animals to be in distress contrary to section 4 of the Animal Protection Act.

R v Kowalik, 2010 SKPC 58

Charged with causing cows to be in distress, as no shelter was provided over the harsh winter. The animals were clearly in distress, as defined by the Act. Strict liability offence.

R v Loerzel, 2007 SKCA 107

Convicted after a lengthy trial, the Loerzels appealed their convictions to the summary convictions court – that appeal was dismissed. They further appealed to the SKCA.

The Loerzels operated an elk farm (Trad Industries Inc.). After government officials and members of the Saskatchewan SPCA visited the farm, saw starving animals; charges were laid. The Loerzels and Trad were charged with causing or permitting elk to be or to continue to be in distress. They were convicted after a lengthy trial and each fined $3,500. Strict liability offence.

Appeal dismissed.

R v Ragnanan, 2014 MBCA 1

Ragnanan and her partner kept dogs in two sheds on her property, with evidence of distress. An animal protection officer visited the property and forgot to leave a notice of inspection for the absent occupants. The dogs were seized. The trial judge determined that the animal protection officers were entitled to enter and inspect the property and to seize the dogs.

Ragnanan & Nikkel were jointly tried for 8 counts of various breaches under the provincial Animal Care Act. The trial judge found them guilty of 4 counts, and imposed fines for each (Nikkel – $14,000; Ragnanan – $6,000; 5-year animal prohibitions for both).

They appealed the decision to the MBQB (R v Nikkel and Ragnanan, 2013 MBQB 207), where both appeals from convictions and sentences were dismissed.

Ragnanan sought leave to appeal further to the MBCA (Nikkels had passed away). Motion for leave to appeal was dimissed.

R v Bernier, 2012 MBPC 36

The accused failed to feed approximately 42 cattle which died of starvation as a result; over 100 cattle remained on the farm, suffering from malnutrition; cow with foot rot and arthritis was not given medical attention; charged on 9 separate counts under the Animal Care Act.

Found guilty on all 9 counts.

R v Talaga, [2006] M.J. No. 145

The accused failed to feed pigs and cows, some of whom died. The accused also had a calf that had a broken leg and was also starving. The Judge felt deterence was a very important factor in this case.

R v Hiebert, 2003 CanLII 47922 (MB PC)

A husband and wife owned and operated what appears to be a “puppy mill” operation (unlicensed dog kennel). An SPCA officer investigated and found approximately 40 dogs living in unsanitary conditions, many were sick and were not being provided veterinary care.

Later, SPCA attended again and seized 99 dogs. Some dogs were euthanized due to their poor conditions.

Out of the 8 counts charges, the Hieberts were convicted of 6, and acquitted of 2.

Alternate citation: 172 Man R (2d) 73

Beynon v OSPCA, 2004 CanLII 24563 ONSC

Beynon, the operator of a dog sledding business, neglected to provide adequate care and shelter for his dogs. The SPCA seized the dogs after issuing multiple orders and directions. Beynon was ordered to pay for food, care, and treatment of his animals.

The total amount to be paid to the OSPCA was $119,046.21.

R v Johnson, 2013 ONSC 7038

The SPCA observed signs of dental problems with the dogs in Johnson’s care. They issued a compliance order that required her to take several dogs to the veterinarian to be examined for distress. Johnson complied with this order, but argued that she should not have to pay her veterinary bill. She also claimed that her Charter rights had been infringed (s. 8) by the search warrant.

R v Larouche, 2001 CarswellOnt 6185

Accused was charged causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to a dog for beating the dog. The dog had been barking. A witness observed the accused yell that he was going to kill the dog and then hold the dog down and punch it in the face with a closed fist approximately 5 times. The dog was yelping. He then dragged the dog into the house. The witness called the Humane Society. The witness had a prior issue with the accused’s cats. The witness was placing mouse traps in her garden to deter the cats and would place bags of their feces at the front door of the accused. She had previously reported the accused to the Humane Society for leaving his dog out in the rain. Another witness also testified to seeing the accused strike the dog. A vet that did not examine the dog testified that a dog hit in the manner indicated would suffer possible bruising and injury to internal organs and would suffer emotional harm. She indicated punching a dog is not an accepted dog training method.

The accused denied the incident completely. He indicated he did not hear about it from the Humane Society until 2 months later and in that time he had surrendered the dog to the Humane Society who ultimately destroyed it.

The court did not accept the evidence of the fist witness as there was no much animosity between the parties and her evidence was suspect. The 2nd witness was discounted because he did not immediately report. The Court found the incident occurred on the civil balance of probabilities but not on the criminal standard. The Court was also suspect whether there was pain, suffering or injury as the Humane Society did not take any steps to have the dog seized.

Not guilty.