R v Shand, 2007 ONCJ 317

An older family dog was neglected by the busy daughter who owned it, and by other family members who were in a financial crisis that led to eviction from their home. The dog was overweight, there was some skin scalding on the thighs from urine, there were extensive skin sores across the dog’s back and hind quarter, the nails were overgrown and it had very poor dental health. The circumstances show a complete absence of basic regular care for the dog. The veterinary evidence indicates that the injuries to the dog’s skin result from the lack of basic care including brushing the coat and regular bathing.

SPCA called after family evicted and found an underweight dog with urine scalding, skin sores and overgrown nails and poor dental health. Charged with 446 neglect. Owner’s father, who occasionally walked the dog, was also charged. She testified she had noticed the sore and consulted with a vet but did not follow through.

Held: the father was acquitted and she was convicted. There was insufficient evidence of the father’s custody or control over the dog. The owner, however, while not intending the dog to suffer she was reckless. She was occupied with her own busy life and had little or no contact with her dog — She ignored her dog’s injury and the veterinary advice.

Found guilty on all charges except abandonment.