Kinross v Bleau, 2024 ONSC 766

Statute: PAWS Act (ON),
Section: 445(1)(a) and Ontario's Family Law Act
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Abuse of family dog in context of domestic violence accusations
Sentence: Pleaded guilty to Provincial Offences Act-related offence after Criminal Code cruelty charges dropped by police
Legal Issue: Family law,

This is a family law case which involves animal cruelty. In the two motions before the Court, the Applicant (mother) is petitioning for child and spousal support and arrears, a modification of parenting time exchange, and costs, while the Respondent (father) is moving for dismissal of spousal support and arrears, modification of parenting regime, and costs.

Among the acrimonious history between the two parties is the mention of an OPP charge against the Respondent for animal cruelty toward the family dog based on allegations brought by the Applicant, which the Respondent alleges was her malicious attempt to cause him financial hardship through legal fees and portray him negatively and were contradicted by the longstanding veterinarian. While the Respondent claims the charges were dropped by the OPP, he also stated that that he pleaded guilty to an offence under the Provincial Offences Act in relation to those allegations (para. 9(o)). The Applicant had the dog euthanized.

The Respondent alleged in his submissions relating to parenting time that the Applicant has a history of violence toward him, where she has created a toxic environment over the past ten years as she was constantly trying to put him in harm’s way, financially, criminally, and physically (para. 8(a)).

The Court determined that interim spousal support would be awarded to the Applicant, due to her virtual lack of income, in the amount of $1077.00 per month but arrears were deferred to the trial judge with the exception of those for unpaid spousal payments in relation to a previous order made on September 1, 2023. With respect to the parenting schedule, the Court rejected the Applicant’s submissions regarding concerns over the Respondent’s parenting abilities (para. 46) and concluded that it would be in the best interests of the children that an Interim Order modifying the parenting regime to a one-week on/one-week off schedule be issued.

https://canlii.ca/t/k2ngg
Kinross v Bleau 2024 ONSC 766

R. v. Barr, 1982 CanLII 3842 (AB CJ)

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: 401(a)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Injury to police dog while evading arrest
Sentence: Found guilty as charged
Legal Issue: Common defenses (Colour of right), Common defenses (Legal excuse), Common defenses (Legal justification), Maim/Wound/Injure, Wilfulness,

The accused was charged under section 401(a) of the Criminal Code for injuring a police service dog named “Apollo,” owned by the City of Calgary Police Service. Facts indicate that the accused was intoxicated and involved in a break-in at a local school when Constable Marsh (canine division) spotted him and another youth running away. When Constable Marsh yelled “stop police”, the accused looked back but and continued to run prompting the constable to command Apollo to attack. The accused, while running, struck Apollo with a metal bar multiple times, causing the dog to bleed profusely and require veterinary attention. Police eventually subdued the accused after a second police dog, “Czar,” was engaged.

The Crown argued that the accused had wilfully injured a police service dog without lawful excuse, while defence counsel argued that their client had acted with legal justification or excuse and colour of right as self-defence, and that he was too intoxicated from alcohol and drugs to form intent to cause harm to the dog.

An interesting distinction in this case is that the dog was considered property of the Calgary Police (pp. 48, 52) as well as a weapon of the police officer (p. 55), and the Court compared the use of the dog in the same manner an officer would wield their revolver: “The police officer controls the timing of the dog’s attack in the same way as he controls the use of his revolver” (p. 57). The Court determined that accused fully appreciated the risk he was taking and exposed himself to it, and that his claim of being too intoxicated to form the necessary intent to commit the offence was not credible based on the evidence presented, including the accused’s ability to run and maintain possession of the crowbar.

The decision emphasized the lawful use of police service dogs in effecting arrests and the protection afforded to them by law when injured in situations where their handlers have acted appropriately. The judge commented that it’s “regrettable that dogs must be used like this because it is essential that they be taught to have no fear and in training are always triumphant” (p. 59). 

The accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://canlii.ca/t/g97f9
R v Barr 1982 ABPC - Judgment

R v Minions, 2023 BCPC 233

Statute: SPCA Act (BC),
Section: s 24
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Hoarding, Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Lack of veterinary care and failure to provide adequate food, water, space, ventilation, and sanitary conditions.
Sentence: $6000 fine, and lifetime prohibition order against owning more than one dog, specifically prohibited from engaging in the breeding of dogs in any manner including the provision of stud services under s. 24 of the Act.
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Fines), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

This is the sentencing decision for a case involving 29 dogs being seized from the accused’s property due to lack of basic care and sanitary conditions; she was found guilty under the province’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The details of the case can be found here.

The Court considered as aggravating factors the abhorrent conditions that the dogs had been found in, which were the result of the accused choosing to “pursue profit from the sale of the Coton de Tulear puppies over providing a clean and safe environment, proper food, adequate grooming and proper veterinary care for all of the dogs in her possession” (para. 28). Mitigating factors included the almost $15,000 in expenses the accused incurred to have the puppies returned to her for sale, including an order obtained by BC SPCA from the Farm Industry Review Board (FIRB) for their expenses for the care of the dogs seized, in the amount of $13,171.09 (para. 30). A neutral factor in determining the appropriate penalty is that the accused did not accept the guilty verdict of the Court, due to which it found the need to denounce and deter her conduct has outweighed any rehabilitative interest.

Because the accused had not demonstrated any understanding of the harm suffered by the dogs in her care, nor any remorse for or insight into the seriousness of her offending conduct (para. 45), the Court accepted the Crown’s submission of a $6,000 fine and a lifetime prohibition order against owning or caring for more than one dog and specifically prohibited from engaging in the breeding of dogs in any manner including the provision of stud services (para. 49).

https://canlii.ca/t/k0z72
R v Minions 2023 BCPC 233

R v JC, 2024 ONCJ 347

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Abuse of a dog in the context of intimate partner violence
Sentence: Found not guilty on all charges
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault, two assault with a weapon charges, uttering threats to cause bodily harm, and wilfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal, contrary to s 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code stemming from a short-lived cohabitational relationship in which his former partner, B.D., described the accused as having anger issues as well as controlling behaviour. There were also charges relating to breach of condition of probation by being within proximity to his former partner and failure to comply with release conditions and probation order by possessing a weapon.

B.D.’s complaints included physical and sexual assault allegations against the accused, as well as his “constant” abuse of her dog, where she claimed he regularly kicked her and caused injuries. She also alleged that J.C. threatened to kill her and her unborn child, which forced charges against the accused due to probation and release orders. B.D. gave testimony regarding multiple occasions of the sexual and physical abuse, threats, abuse to her dog, and violation of court orders. The accused provided his own testimony, answering to the charges.

The Court found the accused’s testimony, as well as other witness testimony that supported it, to be credible and left more than a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The Court was dismissive of the testimony of B.D., determining that it was not credible due to inconsistencies or the inability to remember facts and events despite the judge’s contrary assertion that the accused’s “lack of recall enhances his credibility in my mind” (para.430), with respect to his ability to recall a specific incident. The Court also determined that the accused’s “penchant for angry outbursts” and volatile behaviour did not necessarily amount to a criminal act (para. 436), that his uttering threats was his “dark sense of humour” was “his way of expressing his frustration and upset” (para. 446) and that “reluctant consent is still legal consent” (para. 452) when referring to an incident that resulted in one of the sexual assault charges. According to the judge’s comments in para. 459, it would appear that the Court had decided that B.D.’s accusations were part of a vendetta to keep custody of their child from the accused.

The accused was found not guilty on all charges including the animal cruelty charge which, according to the accused and affirmed by the judge, consisted of “merely a light shoving”, moving the “dog with his leg out of his way” (para. 216).

https://canlii.ca/t/k5wkd
R. v. JC 2024 ONCJ 347

R v A.E.R., 2024 SKKB 90

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 160(1); sexual touching contrary to s 151
Province or Territory: Saskatchewan,
Offence: Bestiality,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Sexual abuse of a dog and her four-year-old daughter
Sentence: Aggregate 8 years 11 months imprisonment with ten months for the bestiality charge; 20-year SOIRA order, 10-year weapons prohibition order, and a DNA order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment),

This case centers around sexual abuse by a mother against her four-year-old daughter. At the time of the allegations, the accused was a young mother of two girls and pregnant with her third child, living with her partner who worked long hours to support his family. The accused began chatting online with K.B. and sending him images and videos of her performing sexual acts on children, the family dog, and other images of child pornography, including multiple videos involving her four-year old daughter which led him to file a report with the Saskatoon Police. K.B. provided evidence which resulted in a search of the accused’s home and electronic devices, and leading to the charges. The accused was also chatting online with other men, who also provided evidence to support the charges after being contacted by police. The accused’s partner was completely unaware of her activities.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual touching contrary to s 151, distributing and making child pornography, commit bestiality contrary to s 160(1) of the Criminal Code. After conviction at trial, the accused also entered guilty pleas on two charges under s 145(5) for breaching her release order. These breaches involved using a portable wireless communication device and for being in contact with a person under the age of 16 years.failure to comply with release order contrary to s 145(5) of the Code.

Mitigating factors that were taken into consideration include the accused’s own history of being a victim of sexual abuse as well as having no prior criminal record. The accused is of Metis heritage but was raised by her non-Indigenous mother, stepfather, and grandparents. There is nothing to suggest she was the target of racism or that she was exposed to violence or substance abuse within the home, reconnecting with her father when she was 13 years old. She also has a history of early sexual behaviour that in her view resulted from her sexual abuse: By the time she connected with her father, she was already putting herself on pornographic websites. At the age of 13, she had sexual involvement with a 19-year-old as well as with two friends from school that included videotaping their sexual activity and putting it online. Some of this sexual activity included a dog. (paras. 60-61)

Aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors due to the nature of the offences and that the victim was assaulted by her own mother and in her own home. Also, the accused had not taken full responsibility of her actions but admitted needing help for her behaviour. The offence of bestiality was committed as a standalone offence with little or no connection to the other offences, one that the accused engaged in this independent of her sexual offences and it will stand alone as a consecutive period of incarceration (para. 79).

The accused was found guilty of all charges and issued an aggregate 8 years 11 months prison sentence with 189 days credit. Ten months of that sentence was for the bestiality charge, but no prohibition order under s 160(4)(a) was sought.

https://canlii.ca/t/k4vvg
R v AER 2024 SKKB 90

Animal Justice et al v A.G. of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 1753

Statute: Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
Section: 2(b)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Chicken, Pig,
Type of Distress: Provincial "ag gag" regulations pose a Charter violation of freedom of expression
Sentence: Section 1 of the Charter does not save the infringement these regulations have on s. 2(b) of the Charter, the right to freedom of expression
Legal Issue: Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Provincial case,

Animal Justice and the interveners request the court to review sections 9, 11(1)(d) and (e), 12(1)(c) and (d), 12(2)(a)(i) and (ii), and 12(2)(c) of O. Reg. 701/20: General under the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020.

The organization raised four contextual factors in this application: the increasing industrialization of animal husbandry, the nature of animal husbandry standards in Canada, the nature of accepted practices in Canada, and the usefulness of undercover exposés. Arguments made include:

  1. The trend of industrialization over the last few decades has been to consolidate animal husbandry into a smaller number of farms producing a larger number of animals with fewer employees.
  2. The nature and source of regulation of the livestock industry. The current regulation for treatment of any animal in Ontario is the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act. Although one provision of that act makes it an offence to cause an animal to be in distress, that provision does not apply to animal husbandry carried out in accordance with administrative requirements.
  3. The standards themselves. The applicants point out that certain accepted practices in Canada would be illegal if applied to a pet and include practices that have been banned in jurisdictions like the U.K. and the EU.
  4. The fourth contextual factor involves undercover exposés. The applicants submit that the only way of bringing the conditions in which animals are raised to the public eye is through covert exposés.

The applicants and interveners assert the Act, and its regulations, violate their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and request that the Court determine whether or not they violate s. 2(b) of the Charter or if they can be saved by s. 1 of the Charter which allows for certain infringements in justifiable circumstances.

To justify an infringement of a Charter right under s. 1, the government must demonstrate the measure: (i) furthers a pressing and substantial objective, (ii) is rationally connected to the objective, (iii) minimally impairs the right at issue, and (iv) is proportionate in that its benefits outweigh its deleterious effects i.e., the Oakes test. Sections 5(4) and 6(2) of the Act minimally impair freedom of expression and are saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

On April 2nd, an Ontario Superior Court judge found that several provisions in the province’s Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act violated the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but stopped short of finding restrictions on protests near slaughterhouses unconstitutional. Section 9 of the regulations was overly broad and disproportionate and not saved by section 1 of the Charter. Other sections of the regulations that were deemed unconstitutional relate to section 12 (at para. 110), where the whistleblower would have to know in advance whether certain farm activities that appear to be cruelty such as “piglet thumping”, a slaughterhouse method of killing piglets, is legal or illegal in order to determine if their actions would fall under the protected exceptions, which further restricts freedom of expression.

https://canlii.ca/t/k3thm
Animal-Justice-et-al-v-Attorney-General-of-Ontario-2024-ONSC-1753

R v Van Hoepen, 2024 ABCJ 79

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Punching, beating and kicking his dog, breaking one of their ribs
Sentence: Six-month Conditional Sentence Order served in the community; 12-month probation period; 10-year animal prohibition order; Combined fines of $1300 but in a default situation, the offender would serve a consecutive term of imprisonment.
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Fines), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

The accused caused injury to his dog Kato in May 2022 by grabbing Kato by the throat and slamming them against a nearby concrete barrier, punching them in the head, and kicking them, breaking one of their ribs. Prior to an assault in September 2022 where the accused had bit his domestic partner’s finger, he had entered into a peace bond with a former domestic partner in November 2021 due to his actions causing reasonable fear of injury in January of that year, which required the accused “keep the peace and be of good behaviour”.

The accused pleaded guilty to wilfully injuring a dog contrary to s. 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, as well as assault and disobeying a previous court order. The Crown submitted that the primary sentencing objectives for crimes of violence are deterrence and denunciation, particularly for violence against intimate partners and against animals, and that only a jail sentence could achieve those objectives.

Aggravating factors include committing an assault against the accused’s intimate partner and assaulting a dog that was his own pet. Mitigating factors include pleading guilty to these offences, displaying genuine remorse, as well as having no prior criminal record. However, the Court was not convinced that factors which led to the accused’s abuse of Kato have been addressed, and therefore was at reasonable risk of mistreating animals under his control.

The Court felt a 10-year animal prohibition order with counselling, rather than the lifetime order sought by the Crown, would allow appropriate time to pass for the offender to mature and learn to properly care for animals. The Court also conceded that a CSO may not be a proportionate sentence in all animal cruelty cases but was satisfied that a properly crafted CSO would be adequate in this case. In addition to the animal prohibition order, sentencing includes a six-month Conditional Sentence Order to be served in the community, followed by a 12-month probation period, along with combined fines of $1300. Should a default situation occur on payment, the offender would serve a consecutive term of imprisonment.

https://canlii.ca/t/k41fs
R v Van Hoepen 2024 ABCJ 79

R v. D.K.M, 2024 BCSC 1126

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 160(3), s 152
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Bestiality,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Inciting granddaughter to commit bestiality under s 160(3) of the Criminal Code
Sentence: Global sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment (calculated at 9 years, reduced on "principle of totality" per para. 97-99); 20-year SOIRA (sex offender registry) order and a 10-year weapons prohibition order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment),

Sentencing for a case involving historical child abuse that included bestiality, where the 78-year-old accused was convicted of committing sexual offences under Criminal Code sections 151, 152 and 160(3) against his three biological granddaughters, aged four and 11 at the time. The reasons for the decision can be found here.

The consulting psychologist’ assessment of the offender was “the impression is that of an opportunistic, exploitative, and hedonistic pattern of sexual offending, possibly catalyzed by alcohol use, by virtue of which he sought variegated and gratuitous sexual stimulation with girls to whom he had ready access and over whom he could exert coercion and control” (para. 25). He refused to take any responsibility or accountability for the offences, which he dismissed as conspiracy by the victims’ mother.

Aggravating factors include the victims’ age at the time of the offences, the offender’s violation of the position of trust he was in as the victims’ grandfather, the offender’s refusal to take any responsibility for his actions, as well as the ongoing impacts on the lives of the victims as they move into adulthood. Mitigating factors include the absence of a prior criminal record of the offender, his low-risk of reoffending in the future, as well as his history of being a productive member of society on account of his ongoing employment throughout his life.

The Court rejected the defence position that these crimes were not a crime of violence but crimes of communication and agreed with the Crown’s submission that communication and violence are not incompatible concepts. The offender was sentenced to a custodial sentence of 7.5 years with SOIRA and weapons ancillary orders, but did not include any animal prohibition orders.

https://canlii.ca/t/k5j23
R. v D.K.M, 2024 BCSC 1126

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v CD, 2024 ONCJ 167

Statute: Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (ON), Criminal Code,
Section: s 160(2); ss 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (ON)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Bestiality,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Compelling to commit bestiality, along with forcible confinement and sexual assault
Sentence: Motion dismissed; Specific order made that the father will not have access to, or be able to obtain or receive information about the child
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges),

This case discusses the motion brought by the father of the child to have access to the child, after all parties had consented to a final order that found the child needed protection and a six-month order placing the child in the interim care of the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) as well as an extension of the statutory time frame of care was made. The father seeks information regarding the child’s birth weight and height as well as regularly occurring information/contact such as, yearly photographs, report cards, reasonable virtual/electronic/telephone access with notice, and the ability to provide correspondence from the father to the child.

This falls under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. All respondents, other than the father, are opposed to the motion.

In December 2022, the father was charged under the Criminal Code with sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, compelling the commission of bestiality under s 160(2), forceable confinement in relation to the mother, and flight from a peace officer. In June 2023, he pled guilty to sexual assault, assault with intentional use of force, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon, and flight from a peace officer and was sentenced to a term of incarceration for just over seven years. Sentencing terms included that the father have no contact with the mother as well as the child.

The father has a history of sexual abuse offences against relatives, non-relatives, and his own children (twelve biological, and three step-children, all removed from his care), a history of neglect spanning the last thirty years, and has served and is currently serving lengthy prison sentences for these convictions. In addition, the child was removed from the mother’s care at birth due to signs of withdrawal displayed by the newborn.

The motion was dismissed, and there shall be a specific order that the father not have access to the child, nor entitled to obtain or receive information about the child.

This case was included here as an example of the intersections between criminal and child protection cases that involve a lengthy history of sexual abuse and neglect, and where compelling commission of bestiality was not included in the final guilty plea.

https://canlii.ca/t/k3tkz
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. C.D., 2024 ONCJ 167

R c YC, 2024 QCCQ 155

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(2), as well as ss 271(a), 264(1), 264.1, 266(a), 267(a), 733.1(1)(b), 279(2), 423(1) 430(1)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Abuse, Unknown,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Unknown
Sentence: Judicial Interim Release denied pending trial, as the accused failed to meet the burden of establishing his detention was not necessary to ensure public protection and attendance at court.
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges),

The accused known as Y.C was arrested in Montreal under outstanding warrants in both Montreal and Ontario for violent crimes. This included animal cruelty, sexual assault, criminal harassment, common assault, assault with weapon, failure to comply with probation orders, forcible confinement, intimidation by violence, mischief, and uttering death threats. This case was to determine whether or not Y.C. should be released on bail.

The facts primarily focused on his past criminal history and some violent offences involving sexual assault and domestic violence, as well as law enforcement interactions to decide the case. Most recently, in August 2023 the accused was charged with new offences of a similar, violent nature in Ontario including assault with a weapon, multiple forcible confinements, uttering death threats, intimidation by threat of violence, mischief and animal cruelty. There were no facts provided regarding the nature of his animal cruelty offence. In addition, there are serious prior convictions. There are also three convictions for failing to comply with bail conditions, extensive drug use, and lack of stability in Y.C.’s life that would prevent re-offence. He even denied culpability of a previous conviction. Also completing none of the 150 community service hours mandated was elucidating. Multiple statements referred to Y.C. as temperamental or explosive.

The Court observed that Y.C., who operated under aliases N.C. and N.M., was a 32-year-old unemployed man with two children with different mothers but had custody of neither, and one of the sexual assault charges involved the mother of one of his children when she was 16. He also suffers from bipolar disorder, ADHD, depression, personality disorder, and PTSD. Regarding bail, the Court emphasized the sureties owes loyalty to the court, not to the accused. Although understandable, naivete or blind faith in the accused is problematic and it will generally undermine the Court’s confidence in a surety.

Looking at the primary ground, it was found that Y.C. had little regard for the justice system because of previous failures to appear at court, breaching probation orders, taking advantage of good will afforded by lying blatantly to the police and completing none of the mandated community service hours set out for them. The accused used fake names and birth dates when dealing with police, and the behaviour was “frankly unacceptable”. His uncooperative and evasive conduct lasted until the end. Given the flagrant and persistent track record of disregarding the justice system and willfully fleeing prosecution, the Court concluded that Y.C. could not be trusted to attend trial as required.

The sureties were considered unsuitable due to their own involvement in the justice system, and support for the accused. The Court ultimately detained Y.C. for failing to address the concerns raised under the primary and secondary grounds of s.515 (10), with the reverse onus being placed on Y.C.

https://canlii.ca/t/k2gn1
R. c. Y.C 2024 QCCQ 155