R v Larouche, 2001 CarswellOnt 6185

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 13(1), 14(1), 17
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Beating a dog and hitting him with objects
Sentence:
Legal Issue:

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.

R v Hunter, 2011 CarswellOnt 18570

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 6 , 11.4 12(1) 12(8)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Horse,
Type of Distress: Neglecting to provide food and water
Sentence:
Legal Issue:

Search and seizure Charter Application.

Accused charged with provincial offences of distress. The OPSCA had received a complaint that 5 or 6 horses were in a small pen with inadequate food and lack of water. The complainant letter to the OPSCA indicated the observations had been made from the roadway. Inspector attended the property and took photographs of the property. Unclear on the decision how much of the property she observed and from where. OPSCA receives a subsequent letter indicating the conditions had worsened. OSPCA and police then attend with a search warrant. Accused argues the initial OPSCA search was unreasonable and thus the warrant based on the observations was then unreasonable.

HELD: section 8 breach found. Evidence excluded and charges stayed. There was no grounds to believe the animals were in immediate distress justifying the warrantless search when the inspector entered the driveway. The inspector acted solely on the complaint without further investigation. The breach was serious and the evidence excluded.

Pitney v OSPCA, 2012 ONSC 4163

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 13,14, 18,19
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Neglecting to provide care and medical treatments to a dog
Sentence:
Legal Issue:

The veterinarian who examined the defendant’s dog found that she was blind, underweight, and suffering from diabetes. She also had a urinary tract infection, fleas, a yeast infection, and possibly cancer. Pitney had been treating the dog’s diabetes with naturopathic medicine and vitamins for dogs. The dog remained in the care of the OSPCA as Pitney was unable to pay the bill for her care. The defendant tried to sue the Board. The statement of claim is frivolous, incomprehensible, vexatious, and an abuse of process. For that reason, it is dismissed. $1000 costs awarded to OSPCA.

Bevan v OSPCA, 2006 ONCA 10140

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 17, 18, 18(1), 18(4)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Unknown,
Animal: Horse, Sheep,
Type of Distress:
Sentence:
Legal Issue:

 

Motion by the Society to quash Bevan’s appeal from a compliance order, placing Bevan’s animals in the care of the Society. The order required the Society to pay the costs of care for the horses, and to share equally with Bevan the costs of care of the sheep. The order also required the Society to return the animals to Bevan on certain conditions. Both Bevan and the Society appealed from the order. The Society’s appeal was allowed and Bevan’s appeal dismissed. Bevan challenged the part of the order relating to the removal of certain animals as well as the requirement he pay costs of care.

HELD: Motion dismissed. Bevan had a right to appeal from the order. As it was a final order, an appeal to the Court of Appeal was available. He was not required to proceed by way of an application for judicial review.

Link: https://canlii.ca/t/1mzdr
Bevan v OSPCA 2006 ONCA 10140

Bevan v OSPCA, 2007 ONCA 119

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 13
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Fowl, Horse, Sheep,
Type of Distress: Neglecting to provide food, care and/or treatment, in order to relieve the animal(s) from distress.
Sentence:
Legal Issue:

Appeal by Bevan from a Superior Court ruling dismissing the appellant’s appeal from an Animal Care Review Board decision affirming an animal removal order. S.14 of OSPCA Act authorizes removal of an animal on a vet recommendation. Issue on appeal was whether the vet’s examination was sufficient.

HELD: Appeal dismissed.

Bearing in mind that a veterinarian may have to deal with large herds of animals or flocks of fowl in distress, or with difficult or dangerous animals, it was unreasonable to require a “hands-on” examination or visual inspection of each animal about which the Society had a concern. The appeal judge took into account a number of factors, including Dr. Fisk’s close examination of one sheep, his visual observation of the condition and behaviour of the remaining sheep, the conditions in which he could see the animals were being kept, the reliable information he had concerning the animals on the farm, and the appellant’s interference with the examination. The appeal judge did not err in determining that Dr. Fisk’s conclusion was reasonable.

(1) $5,000 for the cost of the appeal (2) $2,500 costs for resisting the respondent’s motion to quash the appeal.

See also: https://caselawncpacca.wpenginepowered.com/bevan-v-ontario-society-for-the-prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals-2006-canlii-10140-on-ca/

Link: https://canlii.ca/t/1qm0p
Bevan v OSPCA 2007 ONCA 119

Sheets v OSPCA, 1984 CarswellOnt 2917

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 15, 17(6), 18, 18(4)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Horse,
Type of Distress:
Sentence:
Legal Issue:

The SPCA seized the applicant’s horses. The Animal Care Review Board ordering applicant to pay $6 per day for each of the 37 horse for cost of food and shelter. Applicant sought judicial review of costs. The court reached the conclusion that there was evidence upon which to base the $6 a day finding. Application dismissed.

OSPCA v Straub, 2009 CanLII 25138 ONSC

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 14(1), 15(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Bird, Fowl, Horse, Other, Rabbit,
Type of Distress:
Sentence:
Legal Issue: Ownership/Care/Control,

Civil case for cost recovery post-seizure – deals with definition of “custodian” within the OSPCA Act

Since they were unable to obtain the defendants’ cooperation the SPCA obtained a search warrant. On inspecting the defendants’ property, the plaintiff’s agents found that the birds and animals were, in many cases, being kept in unsuitable surroundings which were not properly cleaned or maintained. In addition, many of the birds and animals had insufficient food and water and a lot of them were in poor condition. As a result, the plaintiff’s agents issued two compliance orders. Treatment of some animals by a veterinarian was also ordered. The plaintiff’s agents concluded that the defendants had no intention of complying with their recommendations concerning the care of the birds and animals. As a result, 87 birds and animals were removed. Some went to foster homes and others to various SPCA branches for care and attention. The plaintiff called very little evidence as to what care was actually provided. In addition, the plaintiff failed to call anyone with firsthand knowledge as to what amounts were actually incurred or paid for the care of these birds and animals and who received those amounts.

Cost awarded in part – denied claim of over $165,000 for the care of these birds and animals – refused to award costs for boarding but awarded costs for elements the OSPCA could directly prove it spent on the animals.

Link: https://canlii.ca/t/23lcl
OSPCA v Straub 2009 CanLII 25138 ONSC

R v Girard, 2011 ONCJ 6531

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 11(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Failing to comply with the standards of care by letting a puppy starve and die of a slow painful death.
Sentence: 10 months jail, restitution, lifetime animal prohibition
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)),

This dog spent its last days, through no fault of their own, suffering incredible pain, trying to survive alone, in living conditions certainly nowhere near the living conditions this dog would deserve; trying to survive again alone, left on their own, with no fresh water, not even an ability to access any source of water over an extended period of time, that time frame was not necessarily clear, but over an extended period of time, suffice to say. They died in a very long, slow and painful death. Their owner, Girard, although located nearby, obviously totally neglected to provide for its care.

Trial decision on a charge of failing to comply with the standards of care. A 10 month old puppy was left to starve to death. The trial justice of the peace found the accused guilty. The Crown had sought a sentence of 6 months and the justice imposed a sentence of 10 months jail with restitution and a lifetime animal prohibition. This case has terrific language for the seriousness of this offence.

This sentencing decision was overturned on appeal, acquittal entered.

R v Pauliuk, 2005 ONCJ 119

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 12(2)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Horse,
Type of Distress: Neglecting to provide adequate shelter, water, food and care to animals.
Sentence:
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)),

 

Trial of accused for improperly caring for 10 horses. Police had attended a domestic dispute and called in the SPCA. A vet testified the horses had been neglected. The vet was a member of the SPCA’s board of directors. He directed its operations, earned money from it, fundraised for the Society and profited from seizing the horses and caring for them. Evidence was provided by Pauliuk that the horses were properly cared for. The SPCA publicized the matter and held fundraising for the animals seized.

HELD: charges were dismissed. The Crown’s case was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias. It would be unreasonable and dangerous to convict on the basis of the evidence.

Link: http://canlii.ca/t/1k5lc
R v Pauliuk 2005 ONCJ 119

R v Baker, 2004 CanLII 33290 ONCA

Statute: SPCA Act (ON),
Section: 12(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Dog, Other,
Type of Distress:
Sentence:
Legal Issue: Procedure (S.8 Charter),

Search warrant was obtained under OPSCA Act. 11 agents under the OPSCA were named. At the time of execution 6 members attended along with a vet and 2 police. Police did not participate in the search, present for keep the peace. 57 animals were removed. Accused was charged and challenged the warrant on basis the Act only authorized one agent of the Society and one veterinarian to enter his premises. Trial judge agreed and acquitted. On Appeal Crown relied on s. 28 (j) of Interpretation Act that imported the singular to include more than 1 person. Superior Court agreed. Appeal from that decision.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. The intention of the OSPCA Act was not to exclude the plural from the singular. If only one officer could have entered the premises with a veterinarian, searches would have taken longer. This would frustrate the process and the Act which is to assist animals in distress. Accused was not prejudiced by Interpretation Act being raised the first time on Appeal. Superior Court did not err when he decided the number of persons was reasonable. Search was conducted in a supervised and controlled manner. Society officers are peace officers and they are entitled to enlist the assistance of the police when they executed the warrant.

Link: http://canlii.ca/t/1hzph
R v Baker 2004 CanLII 33290 ONCA