This is a Crown appeal from the decision of a Provincial Court judge who found the respondent not guilty on a charge under s. 446(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Sara Kons was the owner of two cats on February 14, 2005. She was in a relationship with the respondent, who was present at her home on the night in question. She had gone to bed when she was awakened by the respondent, who informed her that he had sat heavily on the couch, which had a faulty leg and severely injured the cat who was underneath the couch. She stated that the cat was gasping for air and that the only thing she knew to do was break the cat’s neck because there was no veterinarian in town. She went back to bed and promptly fell asleep. She was then startled awake by the sound of a microwave door opening. When she went downstairs, she noticed the accused holding the cat outside the microwave oven. The microwave door was open, and the cat was carrying a weight on top of it.
The actus reus of this definition of the offence necessitates proof that the accused caused the animal unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury. The Crown must prove that the accused acted “wilfully” under the mens rea requirement. In the context of Section 446(1)(a) of the Code, this necessitates proof that the accused intended such a result or that a reasonable person would recognize that his or her actions would expose an animal to unnecessary pain, and suffering, or injury.
The appeal was allowed, the respondent was subsequently found guilty and the matter was remitted to the Provincial Court for sentencing.