Defendant brought his dog to a party and attempted to use his dog as a weapon (was also charged with assault using a weapon). Defendant indicated in some form for his dog to attack someone and the person had to use a bottle (broken over the dog’s head) in order for the dog to let go.
Trial on charges of assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, breach of probation, unnecessary suffering. It was alleged the accused used his dog as a weapon to severely bite people at an out of control house party. Defence agreed that a dog could be a weapon however claimed this accused did not have the sufficient control necessary in this case to be convicted. The Crown advances two scenarios, one that the defendant did have de facto control over the dog, in a physical way, and released the dog upon the complainants. And alternatively the Court could be satisfied that he egged on the dog, enticed the dog or urged the dog to attack, which evinces decision making capacity over the dog with an intention for the dog to be used as a weapon. The accused was acquitted of the animal abuse count because it was highly particularized and there was a doubt as to whether the defendant would have known that when he unleashed the dog he would have had the foreknowledge that the dog would have to be beaten to fend off the attacks. Furthermore there was no evidence of any injury to the dog as a result it been beaten to fend off the attacks. The only evidence of paid was a little cry when the dog was taken from the scene. The judge was satisfied the defendant had said “get him” and either unleashed or let the dog go. The judge was satisfied he said those words in an effort to have the dog attack persons whom he perceived were either hostile to him or part of a group of people that he was not liking, because they had asked him and his dog to leave the party. Judge was satisfied the pit bull, whether or not friendly in other context, appeared extremely unfriendly on that night, had teeth bared, was being riled up by the defendant, did follow the command given to it by the person in de facto control over it, the accused. The judge accepted that regardless of whether the dog’s collar had come off earlier, in other words, whether the defendant was holding the dog by the collar or the scruff of the neck, the defendant had control over the dog when it was released to attack. There was also accepted evidence that the dog appeared to circle back to the person that brought it to the party and it is logical that it would return to that person because that person had brought it to the party. The dog was looking for comfort or direction. Convictions entered.
Appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed.