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

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

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Not specified, cruelty to animals occurred in conjunction with assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment and uttering threats to cause death
Sentence: Guilty plea on two counts of assault, while animal cruelty and other charges withdrawn, and granted Conditional Discharge with one-year probation ending on February 29, 2025 for July 2022; Liquor license refusal upheld
Legal Issue: Provincial case,

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.

https://canlii.ca/t/k79gd
Jayalakshmi South Indian Cuisine v Registrar AGCO Act 2024 CanLII 97874

R v Rahmani Far, 2024 BCPC 179

Statute: Criminal Code, Livestock Act (BC),
Section: s 655, s 11.1(2)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog, Fowl,
Type of Distress: Killing a dog with a rifle
Sentence: Convicted of killing the dog without lawful excuse (offence not stated)
Legal Issue: Common defenses (Colour of right), Lawful purpose, Common defenses (Legal justification), Maim/Wound/Injure,

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.

https://canlii.ca/t/k76b6
R v Far 2024 BCPC 179

KLM v JRH, 2024 BCSC 640

Statute: Family Law Act (BC),
Section: ss 37(2), 37(4), 38, 183, 230(2)(b)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Cat, Dog,
Type of Distress: Family law protection orders sought after incidents of animal abuse, including male party beating his dog and throwing the female party's cat against a wall; previous conviction for putting his then‑girlfriend's cat in a microwave
Sentence: $2,500 fine paid to the female party for the male party's repeated breach of conduct orders (continuing to emotionally abuse and harass her via messaging)
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Fines), Maim/Wound/Injure,

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.

https://canlii.ca/t/k43q2
KLM v JRH 2024 BCSC 640

R v Unruh, 2023 ABKB 293

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Abuse of animal in context of assault and alleged sexual assault
Sentence: Two-year Conditional Sentence Order followed by a three-year Probation Order; a 10-year weapons prohibition, a 10-year prohibition on ownership of animals and subject to forfeit all weapons and ammunition seized at the time of the arrest.
Legal Issue: Procedure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

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.

https://canlii.ca/t/jx73n
R v Unruh 2023 ABKB 293

R v Hutchinson, 2017 BCPC 473

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Wilfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering to a dog by yanking them into the air with their leash and slamming them to the ground
Sentence: Six-month conditional sentence order, including three-months house arrest, followed by twelve-months of probation, totaling 18 months; Victim surcharge fee $100; Four-year prohibition order against “owning, having the custody or control of, or residing in the same premises as an animal or bird”
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Fines), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

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.

https://canlii.ca/t/k6hb1
R v Hutchinson 2017 BCPC 473 - reasons for sentence

R v Hutchinson, 2017 BCPC 472

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Wilfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering to a dog by yanking them into the air with their leash and slamming them to the ground; hitting and grabbing them by the throat
Sentence: Found guilty
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Ownership/Care/Control,

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.

https://canlii.ca/t/k6hb0
R v Hutchinson 2017 BCPC 472 - reasons for judgment