R v Nichols, 2025 MBPC 37

The accused brutally killed eight kittens in June of 2022. Five months later, while on a bail order not to possess animals, he killed fifteen more kittens and two rabbits. The accused is known to have mental health difficulties that were likely exacerbated by his methamphetamine use around the time of the offences. He was first reported to police by his then-roommate, who had found several dead kittens outside their residence. The roommate told investigators that the accused had deliberately sought out animals through online advertisements and sometimes sold them for profit. Attending officers seized a tote container with eight dead kittens (para. 3). The second incident arose after suspicious citizens reported concerns about the accused accumulating kittens through internet ads to the office of the Chief Veterinary Officer. Upon investigation, police located two deceased rabbits in the kitchen and fifteen dead kittens in a trash bag outside (para. 4).

The accused admitted to possessing animals including seeking out more rats because he felt he “could not live without them”.  He conceded collecting animals in violation of his bail order but claimed to have “slowed down”. While he portrayed himself as acting impulsively, his statement revealed a deliberate gathering of animals from advertisements on the internet with the claimed intention of helping them. Initially, he told the interviewer that he experienced “episodes” when overwhelmed wherein he was not himself. He reported leaving kittens in a garbage can to die. When confronted with the obvious injuries, he answered, “well, I have episodes…” He tried to claim that one such episode was instigated by a dog attacking one of the kittens; and then said that one rabbit had died in a “freak accident” and the other of a broken heart the following day after losing its partner. Necropsies performed by an expert veterinarian disproved the feigned dog attack as well as the accused’s rationalizations during the interview (para. 5).

The accused pleaded guilty and had no prior criminal record. In the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), the accused had told the author that he had no memory of committing the offences, that he had blacked out; he also repeated his version of how the animals in his care had died, even after the guilty plea (para. 9). He blamed the offences on drug use, as well as mental health difficulties, a relationship breakdown and suicidal ideation (para. 10). The PSR noted that though the accused had been negatively impacted by the absence of his biological father during his formative years, he had otherwise been raised in a stable and loving environment (para. 12). The accused was of Metis heritage, but no Gladue considerations were reported (para. 15).

Both the PSR and Psychological Assessment Report confirmed the accused had long-standing mental health challenges and interventions, with the likely diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (para. 20). While that somewhat diminished his moral culpability, the court found the reduction was insignificant because the accused’s actions were deliberate, and his mental health challenges were exacerbated by his drug use and failure to follow medical advice (para. 26, 28-30). The court found that specific deterrence was necessary to protect animals from future harm at the hands of the accused; although deemed at low risk to reoffend, he had killed a large number of animals on more than one occasion, has some documented history of harming animals outside the charges before the court, reoffended in violation of a bail-ordered condition not to possess animals, has a history of resisting engaging with mental health services, and had an angry outburst under the influence of drugs that returned him to custody as recently as 2024 (para. 34). In addition, though the accused had pled guilty and demonstrated remorse, he had been dishonest and minimized the seriousness of the offences during interactions with hospital staff, the PSR author, and psychologist performing his assessment and his actions had resulted in substantial harm to many animals, therefore appropriate sentencing should acknowledge the harmfulness of his actions and encourage an increased recognition of his responsibility for that harm (para. 36).

The court sentenced the accusedto a total of five years imprisonment, minus 123 days for pre-trial custody credit, leaving 1,702 days to be served (para. 49-50), as well as a lifetime prohibition on owning, having custody or control of, or residing with animals or birds (para. 51).

 

R. v. K.T., 2016 ONCJ 222

In 2016, the accused was convicted of possession of child pornography, agreeing to commit sexual assault on a minor, counselling to commit sexual assault on a minor, possession of child pornography, making available and making child pornography, conspiring to administer a noxious substance, conspiring to commit sexual assault, and bestiality.

Facts indicate that the relationship between the accused and Shayne Lund while she was a minor (15) and adult was the catalyst of her offenses, including those against her younger sister and family dog. The accused and Lund engaged in explicit digital conversations which included sending images involving animal sex and abuse/rape of children. The accused also created child sexual abuse material (CSAM) of her twelve-year-old sister and discussed plans to rape her. The accused, upon request, sent a photo of her family dog licking her genitalia to Lund, and received from him stories of bestiality and a photo-shopped image of animal genitalia and a young girl. The two discussed plans to rape young girls and many images of Lund having intercourse with young girls.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s young age (19), guilty plea, lack of criminal record and genuine remorse, while aggravating factors were the position of trust regarding her sister, planning the offences, her awareness of Lund’s victimization of other children and her involvement in planning future abuse of more children (para. 45-46).

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment, designation as a Long-Term Offender, and a four-year supervision order.

 

Rose v. Wells & Wells, 2024 CanLII 13996

This is a civil dispute where the plaintiff Ms. Rose filed a statement of claim seeking compensation for the removal of her cat Jack Rose from her property without consent.

The facts indicate that the defendants took Jack Rose without consent while Ms. Rose was living with the defendants’ son and brother-in-law Dylan Wells, then gave the cat to a shelter or sold him. They claim Jack Rose was not being properly cared for and had gotten permission from Mr. Wells to remove Jack Rose and do with him what they what they deemed appropriate. The defendants claim that the shelter is out of business and that they do not know where Jack Rose is but have received messages that he is doing well (para. 4).

The issue before the court was whether the defendants must compensate Ms. Rose for the theft of her cat. The court determined that Mr. Wells had no proprietary interest in Jack Rose and therefore was unable to authorize his removal. The plaintiff must be compensated for the costs of purchasing Jack Rose because she alone bought Jack Rose from the breeder.

From a legal perspective, animals are considered property, therefore costs are determined by the value of the pet in accordance to their market price, regardless of emotional attachment for the animal (para. 7-8). The court ordered the defendants pay a total of $1,428.00 which includes the purchase price of Jack Rose from a breeder, the cost of filing the statement of claim, the service fee, and the costs for disputing the claim.

Jayamani Inc. o/a Jayalakshmi South Indian Cuisine v. Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 ONLAT 15751/LLCA

This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal based on facts indicating that the Appellant, Vikram Subramanian, had applied for a liquor sales licence and was denied by the Respondent claiming ineligibility for a licence under the Liquor Licence and Control Act due to past criminal conduct.

In the required Disclosure Report submitted with his licence application, the Appellant indicated that he had previously been charged with sexual assault from an incident in 2020 (pending trial), as well as two counts of assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, uttering threats to cause death, and cruelty to animals from July 2022. Part of the release order conditions from this incident were that he not possess or have care or control of an animal, which he breached in September 2023.

The Appellant pled guilty to the two counts of assault and was granted a conditional discharge with one-year probation and the other charges were withdrawn. He also had driving infractions and two licence suspensions for unpaid fines.

The tribunal concluded “that it is reasonable for this Tribunal to draw a nexus between his past behaviour and his ability (or lack thereof) to adhere to the rules and regulations which are imposed by virtue of possessing a valid liquor sales licence” (para.17) and agreed with the Respondent “that his conduct does indicate a repeated pattern of behaviour which displays not only a disregard for compliance with rules and regulations, but also with the wellbeing of others” (para. 18), leaving no reasonable alternative but to refuse the liquor licence. The decision from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to refuse the liquor licence application was upheld.

R v Rahmani Far, 2024 BCPC 179

The parties filed a document entitled “Admissions Pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code at the beginning of the trial, which allowed for a narrowing of issues to a singular focus: whether or not the accused was justified in killing Bear the Chihuahua.

The accused shot and killed Bear, the Chihuahua belonging to his neighbour. The accused claimed he was justified based on the Livestock Act given his effort to protect his chickens and in defence of his property.

There was a history of conflict between the two neighbours. The RCMP had previously been involved when the accused claimed that Bear had escaped into his yard and killed his chickens, although he never witnessed the attacks. The accused had also issued numerous threats of shooting/hitting the dogs or actually shooting the dogs with a pellet gun. There are also alleged threats of the accused pointing a gun at his neighbour and his neighbour’s former housesitter.

On March 3rd 2022, the neighbour arrived home and found Bear dead with a shot in his head in the accused’s yard. The accused had not attempted to scare or shoo the dog away, instead he “had enough” and killed Bear. His first two shots missed Bear and scared the dog away from the chickens and back to the hole in the fence- Bear was, therefore, no longer an imminent threat to the chickens (which are not considered livestock).

The accused relied on his understanding of section 11.1(2) of the Livestock Act provides, that a person may kill a dog if the person finds the dog, running at large, and attacking or viciously pursuing livestock. The Court concluded based on the evidence that the accused was angry at his neighbour, frustrated by his perception that the RCMP were unable or unwilling to fix the dog problem, and he had simply had enough, and determined that he would resolve the matter by taking it into his own hands and by so doing, went beyond the limits placed by the common law justifications of Defence of Property or Colour of Right (paras. 64-65).

The Court found that the Crown had disproven the colour of right defence beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused of the offence he had been charged with.

KLM v JRH, 2024 BCSC 640

This is a family law dispute wherein K.L.M. applied for numerous interim orders regarding protection orders against J.R.H., parenting responsibilities/arrangements, breaches of conduct, and child/spousal support. K.L.M. and J.R.H. are in a marriage-like relationship with two children; J. and C.

Evidence shows J.R.H. engaged in family violence between 2021 and 2023 through disputed forms of physically assaulting K.L.M. and using language that constituted emotional abuse. He had also told J.R.H. had also told K.L.M. that he had been charged with assault two previous times against women he was in relationships with, but that those charges were dropped. In 2008, J.R.H. was convicted of animal cruelty after he put a cat belonging to his previous girlfriend in a microwave (para. 25-26).

In the course of their relationship, K.L.M. also witnessed J.R.H. hitting, kicking, and beating his dog, and throwing her cat against a wall. While the Court determined that the 2008 animal cruelty conviction was not directly relevant to this matter, J.R.H.’s abuse towards the cat constitutes emotional abuse towards K.L.M., either by way of threats to her pet or intentional damage to her property. In addition, a review of the 63 pages of message application exchanges between the parties revealed patterns of “J.R.H. demanding that K.L.M. answer questions, badgering her, and refusing to accept her choice not to engage with him when he does so…He also blames her for a range of things including, most seriously, blaming her for any behavioural or other issues experienced by the children” (para. 31). And “at times, he “gaslights” her, blaming her for failing to ensure that he has information related to the children when he was actually provided with that information, or denying that he blamed her for anything when he clearly had done so… has repeatedly insulted and belittled K.L.M….accusing her of lying and of being incapable of handling important documentation” (para. 32). The Court stated that “All of this constitutes family violence” (para. 34) and accepts that it “has likely had a substantial effect on the children’s health and emotional well‑being” (para. 40).

Although he had violated the pre-existing conduct orders regarding communications on the messaging application, the Court determined that a protection order for K.L.M. would not be appropriate at this time because J.R.H. has not contacted her physically and enforcement for communication misconduct would be difficult to enforce (para. 51). Instead, the Court strengthened the terms of the conduct orders to limit messaging to strictly and exclusively parenting issues and only factual in nature; failure for J.R.H. to comply would mean that K.L.M. could reapply for a protection order.

K.L.M. sought an order pursuant to s. 230(2)(b)(ii) of the FLA that J.R.H. pay her a fine of $5,000 for his repeated breach of the conduct orders (para. 71), with J.R.H. indicating he would consent to a $500 fine. The Court noted his breaches of the conduct orders were repeated, flagrant, and intentional, and was satisfied that a fine was necessary to enforce and secure his compliance (para. 76) and ordered that a fine of $2500 be imposed on J.R.H. to be paid within 60 days, with the understanding that any future failure to comply with the amended conduct orders would be likely to result in additional and larger fines.

R v Unruh, 2023 ABKB 293

This matter deals with an extension of the time for filing a summary conviction appeal of guilty pleas that the accused had entered in February 2018 in relation to six offences, including: pointing a firearm at A.A., careless storage of a firearm, assault with a weapon against L.F., uttering threats to L.F., pointing a firearm at L.F., and cruelty to animals. A joint submission was accepted and resulted in the Crown withdrawing three separate informations which alleged 23 criminal charges, including two allegations of sexual assault made by two separate complainants, one of whom was L.F. Details of the animal cruelty charge were not provided.

On October 13, 2022 – four years and eight months later – the accused filed an application seeking an extension of the time for filing a summary conviction appeal, arguing that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice when he was bullied by his then lawyer into entering false guilty pleas as an attempt by the lawyer to hide his ineffective assistance.

The position of the Crown was that the delay would result in significant prejudice because of the time lapse since the conviction and because a key witness and one of the original complainants, L.F, had since died. The Court denied the leave to extend the time to file an appeal after considering such factors as while there was good faith intention to appeal while the right existed, the appellant was unable to justify the failure to appeal within time; the extension would cause prejudice to the Crown’s case; he had not taken the benefits of the conviction and guilty plea; and there was no reasonable chance of success on appeal.

In 2024, the appellant appealed the denial to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. They agreed with the lower court’s decision to deny the extension. They ruled that Unruh was unable to demonstrate a sufficiently arguable case or that there was an issue of sufficient importance that justified an appeal.

R v Hutchinson, 2017 BCPC 473

The accused was found guilty of wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to his dog, “Duke”, contrary to s. 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code on the basis of multiple incidents in 2016. Most incriminating of the incidents was when the accused, while on a walk, was observed yanking Duke, making the dog airborne, then slamming Duke onto the ground, and then kicking Duke. Details can be found here.

The Court noted that the accused experienced a difficult upbringing and homelessness as an adolescent. The accused also has issues with disordered alcohol use and maintaining employment and stable housing. The Court accepted the Crown’s uncontested proposed sentence of a six-month conditional sentence order, which included a three-month period of house arrest, then a twelve-month period of probation for a total of 18 months. Conditions included prohibitions against alcohol and substance use, visiting any retail or business establishments governed by liquor licensing, and successful completion of a counselling or assessment program as directed by the probation officer.

A victim surcharge of $100 was required, along with an order under s. 447.1(1)(a) prohibiting the accused from “owning, having the custody or control of, or residing in the same premises as an animal or bird” for four years. The Court emphasized that the Crown was throwing a “lifeline” to the accused (para. 5) and expressed hope that they could use it to improve their situation.

R v Hutchinson, 2017 BCPC 472

The accused was charged with willfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to his dog, “Duke”, contrary to s 445.1 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code arising from incidents witnessed by separate individuals in 2016.

The witness identification was established beyond a reasonable doubt- an issue emphasized by defence counsel, who reminded the Court that even well-meaning honest witnesses can be mistaken in their identification of an accused, and notes that none of the witnesses had in their written statements or notes provided any physical description of the man or dog concerned in the incident they had witnessed (para. 4). Evidence analysis of witness statements and testimony led the court to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that pain was caused when the accused yanked Duke’s leash until the medium-sized dog was airborne, before slamming Duke down and kicking him.

The other incidents, including an observation of the accused hitting Duke in the head and grabbing Duke by the throat and shaking him, were not established beyond a reasonable doubt to have caused Duke pain, suffering, or injury due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, because of the leash-yanking and kicking incident of abuse, the accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

R v TW, 2015 ONSC 2167

This is the sentencing case for three proceedings that had been subject to a previous application for severance, the details of which can be found here.

The accused was convicted of two counts of possession of child pornography, criminal harassment, and as a result of the criminal harassment conviction, failure to comply with a condition of a probation order requiring him to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”

The aggravating factors were as follows: He was already on probation for sexually assaulting his 14-year-old niece and had no regrets over that crime. He has frequent fantasies about raping young women. The accused is so accepting of child pornography that he had a framed photograph hung up on his bathroom wall. Upon reviewing the contents of his journals, the Court noted that it sent the message, both directly and implicitly, “that females between the ages of 13 and 17: (1) want and enjoy all manner of sexual activities with adults; (2) deliberately dress provocatively so as to entice adults and signal their interest in, and availability for, sexual activities; and (3) want to be raped, enjoy being raped, and deserve to be raped” (para. 10).

Because significant portions of the journal encouraged, expressly and implicitly, criminal sexual activity and in his journal commentaries, the accused advocated and counseled sexual activities with children, possession of the child pornography contained in his journal posed a real risk of harm to children because the contents serve to reinforce the accused’s warped and distorted perspective that his sexual preference for young teenage girls was acceptable, stoke his frequent fantasies about unlawful sexual activities with such young teenage girls, and provoke him to act upon those fantasies (paras. 12-13).

The accused’s psychiatric assessment revealed “that he was “most interested” in, and stimulated by, video content with “rape and bestiality themes.”  He admitted to frequently engaging in acts of bestiality with dogs” (para. 40). He also admitted to having a history of following young girls, exposing himself to them, “having sexual fantasies about killing a teenaged female between 12 and 15 years of age, and having sexual intercourse with the young female both before and after her death”, and “admitted accessing and being aroused by pornography depicting sexually motivated killing” (para. 40).

Among the mitigating factors were that the accused had had a difficult life, has a low IQ, and has been socially isolated for much of his life. His employment record indicate that he is capable of being a productive member of society. His original probation order did not include a no alcohol condition, which was a factor in one offence. The return of his journals is not possible, because might have implied that they were acceptable.

As a result of these factors, the Court sentenced the accused to an effective sentence of five years which it felt reflected the gravity of the crimes committed and denounces the conduct of the accused, including three years of probation with strict conditions such as mandatory psychiatric and drug counselling and treatment, and prohibitions against alcohol, drugs or weapons (para. 57)

The Court also levied “an order prohibiting the accused for life from:

(a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre;

(b) seeking or obtaining any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer, in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;

(c) having any contact or communication, by any means, with a person who is under the age of 16 years; and

(d) using the Internet or other digital network, including any file sharing network, except during the course of his employment” (para. 61).