Josan v R, 2025 SKKB 108

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Saskatchewan,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Beating a dog, caught on video; threatening statements made to person recording incident
Sentence: Appeal dismissed; suspended sentence of 12 months with probation conditions, 30 hours of community service, restitution of $1,994 to the Regina Humane Society, a $100 victim surcharge, and a two-year prohibition on possessing animals upheld
Legal Issue: Procedure (Error in principle),

In November 2024, the appellant/offender had pled guilty to wilfully causing unnecessary pain to a dog by hitting it contrary to s 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in an incident that had been captured on video. He was issued a suspended sentence of 12 months with probation conditions, 30 hours of community service, restitution of $1,994 to the Regina Humane Society, a $100 victim surcharge, and a two-year prohibition on possessing animals.

The offender appealed in June 2025, arguing the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to comply with section 726 of the Criminal Code by not asking the offender if he had anything to say before sentencing (para.13-14). The respondent/Crown submitted that the sentence was reasonable and proportionate to the offence, given its seriousness and the need for deterrence and denunciation and acknowledged the procedural error under section 726 but argued it did not affect the sentence.

The judge undertakes a thorough review of the history of animal case law across Canada, referring to the Criminal Code amendments in 2008 and 2019, and quoting at length from cases such as Justice Fraser’s dissent in Reece v Edmonton, Alcorn, Chen and the recent Nichols case from Manitoba to demonstrate the seriousness of animal cruelty offences and the evolving consideration animals have in society. The judge also stated that

“Sentencing judges must consider both the harm done to the animal and to society’s revulsion against and condemnation of animal cruelty. The focus of the inquiry must begin with the gravity of the offence – the nature and extent of the pain, suffering, and injury caused to the animal as the victim of the offence. Courts have compared offences against domestic animals with offences against children, since both are vulnerable and rely upon people as their guardians for their care and protection” (para. 73)

They reiterated that “most convictions result in a prison sentence, suspended sentence with probation, or conditional sentence order. Incarceration is appropriate for serious cases of intentional harm, including for first time offenders” (para. 74) and that “aggravating factors include harming animals in the offender’s care, since this is a breach of trust, and harming pets of others to exert control or as retribution” (para. 75).

The appeal was dismissed after the judge concluded that the sentence was not excessive, but appropriate given the circumstances, and that the error made by the sentencing judge relating to s 726 was not a miscarriage in justice but a harmless oversight, as the offender’s counsel had effectively communicated the offender’s remorse and personal circumstances to the Court.

https://canlii.ca/t/kdlfj
Josan v R 2025 SKKB 108

Hamer v. Jane Doe, 2024 ONCA 721

Statute: Other,
Section: Courts of Justice Act, s. 137.1
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Hoarding, Neglect,
Animal: Cat,
Type of Distress: Appeal on dismissal of defamation action involving accusations of potential hoarding and neglect of cats
Sentence: Appeal allowed; dismissal of defamation action set aside
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Procedure),

This is an appeal of the motion judge’s dismissal of the appellants defamation action; the reasons and summary are here: Hamer v Doe, 2023 ONSC 4837.

The appellant operates a Roo Roo Cat Rescue, a rehabilitation and adoption service. They began an action against the respondents for negative social media posts and associated comments that alleged or suggested that the appellants were mistreating cats under their care and that Hamer was a cat hoarder with mental health issues.

The appellants allege that the motion judge committed a legal error by misapplying the criteria under s. 137.1(a) and (b) of the CJA and treated the respondents motion as a motion for a summary judgement. The court held that the motion judge’s analysis did not adequately consider both legislative purposes underlying s. 137.1 of the CJA by focusing on the protection of free speech to the exclusion of the protection of one’s reputation through a court action. Furthermore, the court held that the motion judge erred when they dismissed the action against the respondents. This was compounded by dismissing the entire action. S. 137.1 states that the action may be dismissed against only the moving party, not other defendants who may be participating in a motion.

The respondents (Defendants in the original action) position was that that the statements were expressions on matters of public interest, protected by defences such as fair comment, justification, and responsible communication. They argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial harm.

The Court determined that the motion judge had failed to properly assess the cumulative effect of the impugned statements and mischaracterized the potential harm caused by the defamation. The social media posts alleged that the plaintiffs were mentally unstable and mistreated animals. This led to an improper analysis of the defences and the harm caused (paras. 59-61). It found that the motion judge had improperly dismissed the appellants’ evidence of harm, including the rescue’s and individual’s reputation and psychological harm, by imposing an unduly high evidentiary burden (paras. 103-110). The defamatory statements, which devolved into personal attacks, were of low public interest value and outweighed by the harm to the appellants’ professional reputation: “the impugned expression was unnecessary to convey the animal welfare message… the respondents could have expressed their concerns about the appellants’ activities without resort to the extreme and defamatory language that was used in the impugned statements. There is a significant difference between, on the one hand, providing others with a descriptive account of the animal welfare concerns with the appellants’ activities, and on the other hand, calling Ms. Hamer a mentally unstable cat hoarder who harms or kills cats in the appellants’ care” (para. 121).

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal of the action, including the motion judge’s costs award in favour of the respondents. The Court found the appellants were entirely successful on this appeal and would therefore be entitled to their costs of the appeal from the appellants in the all-inclusive agreed upon amount of $14,644.46

https://canlii.ca/t/k74nw
Hamer v Jane Doe 2024 ONCA 721 - appeal

Hamer v Doe, 2023 ONSC 4837

Statute: Other,
Section: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O 1999, c. C.43, s. 37.1
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Hoarding, Neglect,
Animal: Cat,
Type of Distress: Defamation action involving accusations of potential hoarding and neglect of cats
Sentence: Motion granted; Plaintiff defamation action dismissed under anti-SLAPP legislation
Legal Issue: Suitable care,

This case concerns a anti-SLAPP motion regarding a defamation action involving the plaintiffs and defendants.

The plaintiffs are Dee-Anne Hamer and Roo Roo Cat Rescue, which Hamer owns and operates. Roo Roo provides cat rescue, rehabilitation, and adoption services. A motion was brought by the defendants, Susan Namedof and Nicole Algar, to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ defamation claim under Ontario’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) legislation, as the proceeding limits freedom of expression on matters of public interest under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O.1990, c. C.43.

The defamation claim arises from three posts made on Facebook and comments made under those posts. The posts included concern for the cats under care and raised suspicions of potential hoarding and neglect of cats. After initial legal action was commenced, the defendant deleted her profile, effectively removing the posts. More posts were made on a different platform, which the plaintiff again sought legal action against.

Plaintiffs claimed that the posts were defamatory, harmed their reputation, and caused financial and emotional damage, and argued that the posts were not in the public interest. The defendants position was that they had valid defences of justification and fair comment, and contended that the harm alleged by the Plaintiffs was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting their expression.

The judge held that the posts are in the public interest because they relate to animal protection, welfare, and rescue. Also, that none of the claims had substantial merit. Ultimately, the judge held that the case is about the plaintiff wanting to silence the defendant and any criticism of their rescue operation and not real damage. Potential harm to the plaintiff is outweighed by the public interest in protecting expression.

The motion was granted and the Plaintiffs’ defamation action was dismissed (para 56).

https://canlii.ca/t/jzzhc
Hamer v Jane Doe 2023 ONSC 4837 - motion to dismiss

R. v. J.V., 2015 ONCJ 815

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 271, 159(1), 289, 21(1), 22(1), 151, and 265(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Bestiality,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Prolonged sexual and physical abuse of children, including bestiality
Sentence: Both perpetrators found guilty on multiple counts
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges), Encourage/Aid/Assist,

The judge began their decision remarks with “P.V. and J.V. were tried before me on 22 counts alleging the most despicable and odious physical and sexual abuse allegations imaginable”. They were the parents of the complainants, their two daughters KI.V and K.V who were aged 4 and 5 respectively when the abuse began, continuing for more than a decade. The abuse was only discovered and resulted in charges being laid after KI.V attempted suicide, on February 1, 2014, when she hung herself from a tree in the back of the family farm property with an electrical cord; after she awoke from a coma to learn that her sister, K.V., had told a hospital social worker that they had been abused by their parents, KI.V corroborated the story with a hospital worker (para. 4).

Charges included aiding and abetting sexual assault, physical assault, and sexual interference. The father J.V physically and sexually assaulted his two daughters, among other things, for around 12 years. Physical abuse included beatings, forced exercise, being hit with items, and being thrown into beehives. K.V described some of the physical abuse that took place included eating feces and their father encouraging their dog to bite them. The sexual assault of each complainant included intercourse, rape, and other activities, some of which they testified their mother P.V. was involved in. J.V. would often watch bestiality pornography as well, and encouraged both children to watch and forced KI.V to perform sex acts on him (para. 37). On more than one occasion, J.V forced KI.V to have intercourse with the family dogs (para. 39). K.V. would refuse to watch pornography which resulted in violent rape (para. 81).

Testimony from KI.V and K.V was the only available evidence. The judge ruled that KI.V’s testimony was credible, despite some inconsistencies in K.V’s testimony. The judge provided some interesting context regarding the influence of bestality in the crime, specifically at para 216, stating:

“None of the sexual activity KI.V. described defies belief, not even her account of her mother joining in after her father demanded it or the use of a dog after the inspiration of bestiality pornography. KI.V. said that she did not resist. She did what she was told by someone who asserted complete control over her. It is entirely believable that a victim that compliant under the control of a perverted parent could be made to endure the sexual indignity she described” (para. 216).

J.V was found guilty on 11 counts, including sexual assault, physical assault, and related offences, and acquitted on 4 counts due to insufficient evidence or legal issues, while the mother P.V was found guilty on 4 counts, including aiding and abetting sexual assaults and participating in one sexual assault and acquitted on other counts due to lack of evidence.

It is interesting to note that compelling the commission of bestiality (s. 160(2)) or bestiality in presence of or by child (s. 160(3)) were not listed among the charges laid, and only referenced in the conclusion where the judge finds the mother P.V. guilty of one count for having aided J.V. by placing a dog in the room with J.V. and KI.V., while KI.V. was being sexually assaulted by J.V., knowing or being wilfully blind that the dog would be used by J.V. in sexually violating KI.V (para. 322).

https://canlii.ca/t/gsbkw
R. v. J.V., 2015 ONCJ 815

MG v JG, 2025 NBKB 115

Statute: Other,
Section: n/a
Province or Territory: New Brunswick,
Offence: Abuse, Uttering threats,
Animal: Cat, Dog,
Type of Distress: Animal abuse in family law/domestic violence context
Sentence: Parenting responsibility revoked, restraining order issued
Legal Issue: Family law,

This is a family law case where the mother MG was seeking sole parenting time and decision-making responsibility for her three children as well as a restraining order, citing the father’s (JG) history of violence, substance abuse, and neglect. In addition to physical abuse and threats of violence, including from JG and his mother who threatened to call 911 and report that the mother was “crazy” or even kill her if she tried to leave with the children (paras.50-51) along with claims he would have her beaten up or killed by his drug dealers and that he was connected with motorcycle gangs (para. 53), JG also engaged in coercive, controlling behaviour, encouraged his favoured child to imitate his behaviour toward MG (throwing food and taunting with insults), and animal abuse.

Animal abuse listed under facts included throwing MG’s cat to the floor and punishing the animal for bladder or bowel accidents by shoving their face into it, increasing the cat’s stress and frequency of such accidents to the point where MG had the animal euthanized to spare them further abuse (para. 61). JG applied the same treatment to the family dog acquired later, as well as abusive discipline such as beating with a chair and using a remote shock device on its highest setting should the animal have an accident in the house, despite not permitting MG to take the dog out to relieve themselves out of fear that MG may flirt with the neighbour; the few times she was permitted to take the dog outdoors, MG was instructed to keep her eyes down and look at the ground “to avoid flirtatious glancing” (paras. 62-63). The dog was given to MG’s mother to care for in order to protect them from further abuse.

In August 2024, Child Protection Services and the RCMP launched an investigation into allegations against JG of child sexual misconduct (para. 77) with the two older children, whom he took into the washroom and spent excessive time with the door locked behind him (paras.104-105). MG relayed to her therapist that she had walked in on JG in the bathtub with their oldest child on at least two occasions and in one incident found him fondling the child’s penis, “rubbing it with movements that went far beyond cleaning the child” (para. 116), which led to the therapist filing the disclosure that led to the joint investigation (para. 117).

The Court granted MG sole parenting time and decision-making responsibility, as well as a restraining order against JG to protect herself and the three children.

 

https://canlii.ca/t/kc7dj
M.G. v. J.G. 2025 NBKB 115 - other family violence starts at para 56

R v Hoard, 2025 BCPC 105

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 446(1)(b)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Abandonment, Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Abandonment and neglect of five dogs
Sentence: Conditional discharge including 12-month probation order; five-year animal prohibition order
Legal Issue: Abandoning in distress, Procedure (Charges), Ownership/Care/Control, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Procedure (Suffering), Suitable care, Wilfulness,

This is a sentencing decision on a wilful neglect case where the accused issued a guilty plea. The charges were a result of a BC SPCA investigation that began when a member of the public reported abandoned dogs in a building. After obtaining a warrant, investigators found five dogs living in squalor with feces, garbage, a strong smell of urine and drug paraphernalia throughout the residence; a puppy was in a crate with no water or food, other dogs were located throughout the property in different rooms with no food or water, and a fifth dog was located in a room which had water but no food (para. 13). Four dogs were able to recover and rehabilitate, but one had to be euthanized due to aggression that could not be resolved.

The presentencing report indicated that the 25-year-old accused had a history of mental health issues, including disordered substance use and psychosis, and had stopped taking her medication due to the side effects. In the section titled “Attitude and Understanding Regarding Offence”, the report writer indicated that the accused had been in psychosis and was removed to another part of the province by an ex-partner who refused to return her and whom she feared due to past abusive behaviour, so she was unsure how long she was gone and the dogs were left without care, but she wanted to take responsibility and acknowledges her wrongdoing involved in the offence (para. 29).

Counsel entered a joint submission for a conditional discharge which, despite deterrence and denunciation being the primary goals of sentencing for animal cruelty offences, was applicable to this unique case as Crown counsel indicated that the circumstances were on the lower end of the scale of neglect typically seen in these offences (para. 36). Aggravating factors were the housing and condition of the dogs when they were found and that they were unable to help themselves (para. 37) but mitigating factors were that four of the five dogs were able to be rehomed and the circumstances the accused was in at the time the offence occurred.

In reviewing the sentencing principles, the Court referred to section s 718.2(a)(iii.1), stating that some may consider it to only apply to human beings: “I do not. I believe it also applies to animals who are in the care of human beings, as was the situation in this case. So I am considering the victims, and the victims were the five dogs, one of whom had to be euthanized, and the other four of whom I am told have been rehabilitated” (para. 10). However, the Court agreed with counsel that a conditional discharge would be suitable for this case and issued a 12-month probation order that included for mental health counselling and prohibited any non-prescription substance use, and a five-year animal prohibition order.

https://canlii.ca/t/kcxfs
R v Hoard 2025 BCPC 105

R v MKV, 2025 BCPC 89

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 160(1),(4); s 490.012
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Bestiality,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Sexual abuse of family dog
Sentence: Nine (9) months imprisonment, followed by two years probation; 10-year animal prohibition under s 160(4) and SOIRA orders
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

This is the sentencing case for a 34-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of the family dog, Tucker, after his wife found him committing the act in the backyard while their two young children slept inside their home. She contacted the RCMP, who arrived and arrested the offender for bestiality after he informed officers, “I f***ed the dog” (para. 21).

The wife’s statement to officers that evening indicated that when she found them outside, the offender told her that “he was killing Tucker because the dog had been problematic”, but when Tucker ran away she noticed that he was yelping and had lotion on him, she asked if the offender had been having sex with the dog. The offender denied the allegation and showed the wife his penis, which she recognized as a lubricant he had tried to convince her to use previously. She went inside to examine Tucker, observed blood on his anus and lubricant all over him. When she asked the offender to leave, he became defensive and angry and said he would not leave. She called the RCMP, and then called her mother to come over to the residence because she was scared of what M.K.V. would do in angry state. The offender admitted after she called authorities that he did sexually assault Tucker and that it was the first time, but it was not a big deal and said she should not involve the police (para. 23).

Tucker was taken that evening to a veterinarian, who examined him under sedation because he “was visibly uncomfortable and kept pulling away when his anal region was touched”. The veterinarian noted that there was visible trauma to the dog’s anus and that Tucker displayed extreme avoidance behaviour atypical of a heavily sedated animal, and went further to state that dogs do not copulate anally and therefore the forced penetration by the offender would have produced fear and pain in Tucker. She wrote in her report: “In conclusion, there are physical, behavioural and radiographic signs that are consistent with sexual abuse. Animals that experience trauma have both physical and emotional changes. The impact of psychological trauma will far exceed beyond the duration of the physical experience. It is important to consider the long-term impact of pain and suffering on an animal that has experienced the trauma of sexual abuse” (para. 26-27).

The pre-sentencing psychiatric/psychological assessment written by a registered psychologist from Forensic Psychiatric Services indicated that the offender exhibited signs of moderate Bipolar Disorder and Panic Disorder as well as some Alcohol Use Disorder and Hallucinogen Use Disorder (psilocybin), both in Sustained Remission. He met virtually with the offender, who had missed two appointments for further psychological testing to determine risk and address the causes of the offence, and wrote in his report that “It is difficult to explain the “causation” of the abuse of the family dog as M.K.V. stated that he had no memory for the event. He stated that he was ‘out of it’ having ingested mushrooms (psilocybin) and consumed a significant amount of alcohol. It may have been an isolated incident related to the active effects of a hallucinogen” (para. 45) and that he believed that he would likely not reoffend sexually, either with animals or humans but was more likely at risk for future self-harm than committing harm to others (para. 46). The psychologist highlighted three contributing factors to the offender’s behaviour: bipolar disorder; history of childhood trauma involving emotional abuse from father and an incident of sexual abuse from an older male relative at age 3 or 4, and alcohol use disorder.

The Crown sought a carceral sentence followed by at least 18 months of probation and a 10-year prohibition against care and control of any animals and registry under the Sex Offender Information and Registration Act (SOIRA) for a period of 10 years. Defence counsel was not opposed to the ancillary orders, but asked the Court to impose a conditional sentence order which the offender would serve in the community.

The Court found it most aggravating that the offender had “violently abused, and physically and emotionally harmed, the family dog he was entrusted to care for. The dog was vulnerable and helpless to defend itself” (para. 70). Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, no prior criminal record and compliance with bail conditions, as well as the possible reduced moral culpability due to the psychological assessment and “collateral consequences” of a large number of very negative posts on social media about this case and about the offender in particular that have caused difficulties in his employment and finding accommodations (para. 74-75).

The Court quoted from the Chen decision submitted by the Crown, agreeing that the statements and principles outlined there relating to cases of animal cruelty are applicable to bestiality cases (para. 94-102). However, what the Court struggled with most was whether, because of the offender’s history of bipolar disorder, childhood trauma, and alcohol use disorder together with the fact that he had consumed alcohol and psilocybin before committing the offence, his moral culpability is to be reduced (para. 103).

The Court found the RCMP constable’s testimony most important in this respect, which indicated that the offender was not grossly intoxicated; he was stable on his feet, did not slur his words, seemed able to understand the officer and was able to engage in meaningful and coherent communication with him, saying nothing unusual to suggest he was suffering from hallucinations or delusions and was in a state of altered reality (para. 110). In addition, the use of lubricant “in the commission of the offence shows a certain amount of pre-contemplation and planning” (para. 112). The Court ultimately agreed with the Crown’s submissions that the offender had exaggerated the role that intoxication played in the offence (para. 107) and that “the evidentiary record in this case does not support a finding that mental illness and intoxication played such a significant role that the [the offender]’s moral culpability is significantly reduced” (para. 114).

The Court ultimately determined that a non-custodial would not adequately serve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a nine-month jail sentence, to be served in a correctional facility, followed by two years of probation which include no contact orders with his wife and children except as allowed by a family or child protection order made by a judge or associate judge who has been given a copy of this order, and not to reside with or be in the presence of any dog or other domestic animal except if in the company of another adult and only if in the course of the offender’s employment.

https://canlii.ca/t/kch3c
R v MKV 2025 BCPC 89

R v Nichols, 2025 MBPC 37

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445(a)
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Cat, Rabbit,
Type of Distress: Killing 23 kittens and two rabbits
Sentence: Five years imprisonment, lifetime animal prohibition order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Wilfulness,

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).

 

https://canlii.ca/t/kbzx6
R. v. Nichols (2025) MBPC 37

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

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 160(1); s. 163.1 (2)(3)(4), s. 172.2, s. 271/465 (1) (c), and s. 464(a)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Bestiality,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Bestiality and sexual abuse of a child (accused's 12-year-old sister)
Sentence: Three years imprisonment, designation as a Long-Term Offender and a four-year supervision order.
Legal Issue: Sentencing,

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.

 

https://canlii.ca/t/gpltk
R v K.T. 2016 ONCJ - Sentencing

Rose v. Wells & Wells, 2024 CanLII 13996

Statute: Other,
Section: n/a
Province or Territory: Newfoundland and Labrador,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Cat,
Type of Distress: Theft of cat
Sentence: Ordered to pay $1,128.99 + $300 (costs)= $1,428.00
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Costs), Ownership/Care/Control, Sentencing (Restitution orders),

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.

https://canlii.ca/t/k32d9
Rose v Wells and Wells 2024 NLPC 1323C00040 2024 canlii 13996