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