Ms. Robinson was charged pursuant to sections 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b) of the Criminal Code regarding her 20 horses and pig.
Following two complaints and several interactions with Robinson, including orders to improve the living conditions of her animals, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) seized 13 of the 20 horses from Robinson’s 20 acre-property. Prior to the seizure of her horses, Robinson’s property was visited several times over the span of 3 months by two veterinarians and an investigator by the SPCA who assessed the condition of the horses and pig in her care as well the property. The investigator and veterinarians relied on the “Henneke Scale”, which is used to assess a horse’s body condition between 1 (being extreme emaciated) and 9 (being extremely fat). Both veterinarians identified 3 horses in particular that had low body conditions scores between 1 and 3 (5 being the ideal body condition score for a horse) and attributed their low body conditions to lack of adequate food, water and care.
Robinson testified that she provided adequate water and feed to her horses and that an unexpected cold snap caught her off guard, which lead to her horse’s weight loss.
The Court found that the Crown was only successful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the three most concerning horses were experiencing pain and suffering associated with their poor body conditions, that the pain and suffering was unnecessary and caused by Robinson, and that she had failed or neglected to provide suitable and adequate food, water and care for the three most concerning horses. However, the Crown failed to prove that Robinson acted wilfully. There was no suggestion that Robinson intended to inflict harm to her animals as she cared deeply for them. Regarding the possibility of recklessness, the Court found that while Robinson’s actions may have been careless, her conduct did not reach the required level of recklessness. Because the Court found it convincing that two neighbours were not alarmed at the condition of the animals, it was not satisfied that Robinson’s actions were a marked departure from the norm. For these reasons, the Court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson acted wilfully.
As a result, the Court found Robinson not guilty on both counts.