After a late family Thanksgiving dinner in 2014, a basset hound puppy named Charlie got into the kitchen and was attempting to reach the kitchen counter and eat some food that had been left out. Two witnesses testified that they saw the accused fling the dog, and punch and kick her hard enough for her to yelp and put her tail between her legs. About two weeks prior to this, the accused had threatened his wife by swinging his fist toward her face, stopping at the last second before contact. The couple had become estranged earlier that year and were separated but remained living together in the same home.
These incidents were not reported to police until November 27th, 2014, when the accused was arrested and charged with assaulting his former spouse and causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the family dog by punching and kicking it contrary to sections 266 and 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Allegedly, the couple had a disagreement on November 26th over custody of the children.
The accused denied assaulting his former spouse and the puppy, and stated that he had grabbed Charlie by her collar and swatted her on the nose to discipline her with minimal force. The defence took the position that the former spouse had invented these events in order to gain an advantage in a custody hearing for the children.
In the decision, the judge commented that in domestic abuse cases it is not unusual for a significant length of time to pass before it is reported and that it would be an error to consider the delay in report relative to the credibility of the complaint. However, there was inconsistency in evidence and the possibility of collusion between two of the witnesses.
Unsure of who was telling the truth, the judge had to abide by the principles set out by the Supreme Court in R v W(D) where there was reasonable doubt, and found the accused not guilty of both offences.