R v MacIsaac, 2008 NSPC 81

Sentencing after guilty plea.

When the SPCA officers arrived in the house, the floor was covered with feces and urine and there was a strong ammonia smell. The dogs were defecating in the house and lying in their own feces and urine. There was sewage on the basement floor, no food or water apparent, and there were apparently 50 cats in this location. Many animals had severe respiratory problems, eye problems and diarrhea, and the infection rate was exceptionally high. Some dogs were kept in wire kennels in the living room while other dogs and cats were running loose. In one bedroom was a beige dog who could not walk and that dog was lying in his own feces. Several dogs’ hair and fur was matted with urine and feces. Criminal record: none for both of the accused. Plea: guilty. Mitigating: Zonda MacIsaac has prior mental health issues, major depressive disorder. She became overwhelmed by the number of animals that she was attempting to care for.

Sentence: (1) $1,000 fine under Section 18(1), (2) 20-year ban on owning animals or operating any commercial operations relating to animals subject to a few exceptions.

R v Jackson, 2011 NSPC 108

While doing an inspection next door, a veterinarian observed in Jackson’s backyard two dead birds in a cage (one chicken, and one duck) and that there were approximately eight other birds in the cage still alive but in apparent ill health. There was no bedding in the cage. There was no evidence of any water or food available for the birds. A pathologist testified that there was complete absence of muscle mass in the tissue of the dead birds that had been necropsied. There was inadequate amount of space allocated to these animals even more considering that different species were mixed together. Also, the living birds were in significant distress by virtue of their proximity to the dead ones.

(1) Guilty under Section 21(2); (2) Not guilty under 21(1).

R v Vaillancourt & MacKenzie, 2003 NSPC 059

Charged with criminal neglect, 446 and distress under provincial legislation. Crown stayed the criminal charges. Accused argued the provincial legislation was ultra vires the province as being criminal in nature and that the search and seizure provisions of the Act infringed s.7 and 8 of the Charter.

HELD: the Criminal Code was broader even though they dealt with the same subject matter. The Province had not usurped the role of the Feds. Given both legislation used same language there was harmony and no conflict. A person wouldn’t be in breach to follow the other.

The search and search warrant powers were an overreach and a breach of section 8 not saved by section 1 of the Charter.

SPCA v Millette, 2007 NLPC 40186

Application brought by SPCA to seize Millette’s pets.

SPCA observed that Millette’s pets were suffering due to neglect. They sought a search warrant to enter her home, remove her pets, and have them euthanized. Millette lacked the money to pay for the operations her pets required. The judge determined that there would be alternative means of taking care of the pets’ apparent distress without causing distress to their owner.

Judge denies application made by SPCA for officer with search warrant to enter Millette’s home and remove her pets.

NLSPCA v Skiffington, [1978] NJ No 152

Two Fisheries Officers watched the accused heard a pod of dolphins with his boat. Once one dolphin was grounded, the accused speared their blowhole. The Officers also noted marks of beating and a gouged eye. Believing that the dolphin would not survive their injuries, the Officers shot and killed the dolphin, and arrested the Accused.

In this Judgement, Justice Barry found that the provincial Protection of Animals Act only applied to domesticated or captive animals, and that wild dolphins were not protected by the statute. The Accused was acquitted.

R v Putt, 2013 NLPC 35023

Jaclyn Pope was dropping off her boyfriend (Christopher Butt) at his residence in Pasadena when Mr. Putt, who was standing nearby, began yelling and screaming at both of them. Putt called her a “slut” and both of them “rats.” Puttthreatened to “slit” their throats, to kill their pets, to break all the windows in Ms. Pope’s motor vehicle and to “blow up” Butt’s apartment. Putt retrieved a baseball bat from the pan of a truck and began swinging it. He moved toward Ms. Pope and Mr. Butt and threatened to break their legs. Putt has a criminal record. It consists of fourteen convictions over the time period of 1995 to 2012. He has a prior conviction for having uttered a threat, three prior convictions for the offence of assault and eight prior convictions for having breached court orders.

(1) Six months incarceration, minus twenty three days credit for pre-sentence custody (To be served on a concurrent basis: for threatening to kill Butt and Pope, a period of three months imprisonment; for threatening to damage the property of Butt, a period of two months imprisonment; for threatening to kill an animal belonging to Butt, a period of two months imprisonment; and for breaching the probation order, a period of three months imprisonment.) (2) Twelve months probation (3) DNA order under 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code (4) Weapon/ammunition prohibition order issued for a period of five years under s. 110

107 W.C.B. (2d) 417

R c Denis, 1990 CarswellQue 1213

Trail decision of an accused charged with criminal neglect. There was no issue with the ownership of the animals. The witness wanted to buy a cow from the accused but noted all the animals appeared very ill. When he expressed his concern to the accused he responded that he had no time to deal with it. The witness reported to the SPCA. SPCA attend and note several dead animals. Over different visits various cows and calves are seized. The conditions do not improve between visits and while there is sufficient shelter the water is frozen and there is insufficient food. A vet opined the animals were starving and suffering from malnutrition and disease. One cow had a buttock partially eaten by a predator and was still alive. The accused claimed he bought the animals in bad shape and fattened them up. The water dispensed had broken and he was wanting for parts to fix. He was waiting for the collector of the dead animals to arrive and he was months behind. Baby animals sometimes die and he put sufficient food out for the animals. The Court found that the accused had the right to attempt to purchase cheap animals but once they became his property he could not show indifference to them. His carelessness towards them was unjustified. The accused testified he checked the animals daily and the partially eaten animal had not been there. The judge rejected this evidence. Dead animals were floating in the pond that provided any source of water. Even if the judge accepted the water equipment was broken the presence of the dead animals in the water pond showed unjustifiable recklessness. While some of the herd was in fine health it was apparent he did not care about certain animals. The level of recklessness amounted to wilfulness and he was convicted.

Accused found guilty.

R c L.-P.S.-C, [2003] J.Q. no 5181

Defendant (young offender) shot a dog with a gun (dog did not die) then put the dog in a cabin and set fire to the cabin, where the dog perished.

Accused found guilty.

R c Laberge, 2012 QC

Laberge, in a violent rage, hit one of his pugs numerous times with dishes, then when the dishes broke proceeded to stab the dog repeatedly. She survived and was rushed for emergency treatment at a veterinary hospital.

Accused found guilty, sentenced to: (1) 6 months prison (2) 25 year prohibition on animal ownership

R c Riel, 2011 Cour Municipale, Montréal

Hurt a dog belonging to Madame Michele through a violent assault. Sentenced to (1) 60 days prison (2) 2 years prohibition on animal ownership.