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

R v TW, 2015 ONSC 2167

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s.163.1, s. 264(1), and s. 31
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Bestiality, Other,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Criminal harassment, child and animal sexual exploitation material with a history of animal sexual abuse
Sentence: Enhanced credit for four years and two months for pre-sentence custody, for a total sentence of 10 months imprisonment; three year term of probation; $100 victim surcharge fee
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"),

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).

https://canlii.ca/t/gh29w
R v TW 2015 ONSC 2167 - sentencing

R v TW, 2014 ONSC 4533

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 264(1) and (2)(b), s. 733.1(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Other,
Animal: n/a,
Type of Distress: Criminal harassment of a female complainant
Sentence: Guilty of criminal harassment and failure to comply with a probation order
Legal Issue:

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

The accused faced charges on two offences, that he criminally harassed a woman by repeatedly communicating with her and failure to comply with the condition of a probation order. The only issue at trial was whether the Crown had established that the accused was “reckless” in relation to whether the complainant was harassed by the messages.

The accused first met the complainant in 2000. She worked in the copy centre of a business centre that the accused frequented and he became obsessed. The partner of the accused found a journal filled with obsessive notes about the complainant, along with pornographic images and crime scene photos. When the accused returned home that day, his partner confronted him with the findings and eventually called the police. He was arrested. The accused entered a peace bond and was released.

However, beginning in May 2012 and more than 11 years after his initial arrest and peace bond, the accused made a series of phone calls to the complainant at her place of work, then at a women’s shelter, that made significant impacts on her life. He left a series of voicemails in July 2012 that included ‘Please Princess [complainant] I’m very proud of you since [her job in the copy center] and now a women’s shelter. I love you and always will. I love you’ and ‘You’ve come a long way Princess [complainant]. I’m very proud of you since [her job in the copy center] and now a women’s shelter. I love you and always will. I love you’ (para. 27). He was arrested again.

The Court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of criminal harassment. As a result of the criminal harassment conviction, the accused was also found guilty of failure to comply with a probation order.

https://canlii.ca/t/g8hd0
R v TW 2014 ONSC 4533 - crim harassment trial

R v TW, 2014 ONSC 4532

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 163.1
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Other, Unknown,
Type of Distress: Animal sexual abuse depicted in accused's pornography collection
Sentence: Guilty of two counts of unlawful possession of images of child pornography
Legal Issue: Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"),

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

The accused faces charges of possession of child pornography, one for a small number of photographs and another for a lengthy three-volume journal consisting of photographs and writings. These items had been seized by the police during the execution of a series of search warrants on the accused’s apartment and backyard shed belonging to the mother of the accused.

The issues at trial were whether the materials constituted child pornography and, if so, whether those materials fall within the judicial exception for written or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for his own personal use. The Court relied on the definition of child pornography provided by the Supreme Court decision in R v Sharpe in 2001.

The evidence included images of three young girls, a framed picture of a naked young girl on his bathroom wall, and a three-volume journal consisting of 490 pages of photographs and writings with the name of the accused’s alter-ego ‘Mopboy’, all of which were considered child pornography. The family album pictures were deemed not child pornography. The journal contained explicit details of the accused’s rape fantasies which involved young teenaged girls aged between 13 and 16 whom he refers to as ‘sluts’ or ‘vermin’.

The third volume opened with “a number of pages from an official document from the Ministry of Community and Correctional Services regarding the Ontario Sex Offender Registry. One of the pages, entitled “Sentence Information,” indicates that the accused was sentenced on October 12, 2010 to 730 days imprisonment.  Included amongst these pages is a page on which the accused has provided a graphic and detailed account as to the various sexual activities (including intercourse) in which he engaged with his 14-year-old niece in August of 2010.  At the conclusion of this account, the accused outlined the sentence that he received as a result of this offence, including the term of imprisonment, probation and “life” on the Sex Offender Registry. The accused then indicated that it was all “worth it” as he “got to steal [his] nieces virginity” and he would be “[remembering] that night for years and years to come.” (para. 41). 

Included among the journal materials were three images of young women engaging in acts of bestiality (para. 57).

The Court ruled that the private use exception was not applicable because the written materials and visual representations in the journal were not created solely by the accused because much of the accused’s journal “consists of pornographic images that the accused secured from some external source, such as a book, magazine, or internet website.  Indeed, as I have already concluded, some of these pornographic images in the accused’s journal are themselves child pornography” (para. 63). It was held that the Crown has established that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts alleging that he had unlawful possession of images of child pornography.

https://canlii.ca/t/g8hcs
R v TW 2014 ONSC 4532 - CSEM trial

R v TW, 2014 ONSC 4531

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s.163.1, s.264(1), s. 265(1), and s. 31
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Other,
Animal: n/a,
Type of Distress: Criminal harassment, sexual assault and possession of child pornography
Sentence: Application for severance approved
Legal Issue: Procedure,

This case involves an application by the accused to sever the counts in the indictment that resulted in five charges: criminal harassment, failure to comply with a probation order, possession of child pornography, sexual assault, and another child pornography possession. Its relevance to animal cruelty and abuse will become clear in related proceedings.

The defence alleged that the time separation between the charges means it ought to be in three separate trials. The criminal harassment charge took place in 2000, wherein the accused harassed a woman at her place of work. It was resolved in a peace bond and required the accused to move back to Toronto. Following this, around the same time, there was an act of non-consensual intercourse between the accused and H.T.

In 2012, the accused once again was charged with criminal harassment of the same complainant from the 2000 harassment charge, which resulted in a charge involving failure to comply with his probation order. When police searched the accused home, they found child pornography.

The judge ordered the severance of the child pornography, criminal harassment and the sexual assault charges due to the prejudice they present if tried together, as the evidence was considered to be unrelated.

The application for severance was granted, with the judge ordering that the count alleging sexual assault would be tried separately on another occasion by a different judge but that they would remain the trial judge in relation to all four of the remaining counts. However, the judge noted that the criminal harassment and breach of probation charges will be severed and tried immediately after the conclusion of the trial on the two child pornography charges.

https://canlii.ca/t/g8hcq
R v TW 2014 ONSC 4531 - severance

R v Bob 2018 BCPC 311

Statute: SPCA Act (BC),
Section: s 24(1)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Causing or permitting dog Rascal to be in distress (neglect)
Sentence: $750 donation to SPCA, $250 fine payable within eight months and five year animal prohibition order (provincial)
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)), Provincial case (Distress), Sentencing (Fines), Ownership/Care/Control, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Sentencing (Restitution orders), Provincial case (Sentencing),

The accused entered a guilty plea to the offence of causing or permitting a dog, Rascal, to be in continued distress while under their care, contrary to s. 24(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The court noted that the accused did not have a criminal record, was a leader within the Nanoose First Nation and was deeply remorseful over what had happened.

As part of the resolution process, the accused donated $750 to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The court accepted the joint submission of counsel requesting the accused pay a fine of $250, payable within eight months, and be prohibited under s. 24(3) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act from having the “custody or control of an animal for a period of five years”.

https://canlii.ca/t/hwj5l
R v Bob 2018 BCPC 311