Trial Decision: Trial of husband and wife on charges of criminal neglect and unnecessary suffering of cats and dogs. They had been the subject of OPSCA investigations before. An investigator received a complaint and visited. She observed the smell of cat urine. She left a notice. The wife called to say she was out of town. The investigator did not believe her and obtained a warrant. Upon execution 56 cats and 2 dogs were found in the 1 bedroom apartment. The conditions were unsanitary and the animals had various ailments. There was a lack of food and food. The animals were seized and 8 cats had to be euthanized. Couple claimed violations of rights because of insufficient warrant. They claimed the OPSCA agent was biased against them and the animals were temporarily in worse state because of an illness of the wife. The warrant was sufficient, the vets and agents were credible and the accused’s evidence was inconsistent and defied common sense and logic. To subject the animals to the living conditions in the couple apartment was criminal. The couple’s conduct was wilful. They caused unnecessary pain and suffering to the cats, and failed to provide adequate food, water and shelter for most of the animals. They were equally responsible for the offences. Both convicted.
Sentencing Decision: Wilson was sentenced to 60 days incarceration. Stewart was sentenced to 75 days incarceration. Each was to reimburse the OSPCA in the amount of $595. Mitigating factors were the defendants’ ages, lack of a criminal record, that the crimes had more to do with neglect and omission rather than intentional infliction of harm and suffering the fact that the likelihood of re-offending was minimal, and the apparent poor health of both defendants. Aggravating factors included the prolonged period of time over which the offences occurred, the apparent lack of insight and empathy displayed still by the accused, the vulnerability of the animals, the large number of animals involved, the extent of the pain and suffering to which so many of the animals were exposed, the breaching of the trust that must exist such that domestic animals were properly cared for, and the lack of plan or proposal set forth on behalf of either accused who had obvious mental health and personality issues. Denunciation and general deterrence were of paramount importance in this case. To impose a conditional sentence would not be consistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing. Each offender had been previously convicted for a similar offence but had since received a pardon. Each was then considered a first-time offender.