R v Haughton, 2013 BCSC 1683

Ms. Haughton appeals the decision as cited R v Haughton, 2012 BCPC 505.

Ms. Haughton argues that there was no analysis done regarding her duty as the owner, and states that she did what was reasonable in her absence by leaving the dogs in her son’s care. The trial judge failed to address her obligations as the owner as compared to the obligations of a custodian of the animals.

Haughton was found not guilty on Count 2. The judge found that the trial judge failed to differentiate between the duties of an owner and those of a custodian as set out in s.446(1)(b) of the Code. Ms. Haughton was neither wilful nor reckless as set out in s. 429(1) of the Code in her decision to trust the animals to her son.

Further Ms. Haughton was acquitted of her s.3 conviction as well. The Crown conceded that a conviction was wrongfully entered with regard to this count because the verdict depended upon a definition of “duress” that was not in force at the time of the offence.