R v Jaffrey, 2023 ABCJ 241

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Cat,
Type of Distress: Injuries to cat including tail puncture, head trauma, and fractured ribs
Sentence: Found not guilty due to insufficient evidence to prove case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure,

The accused was charged with causing significant injuries to a cat Lucy contrary to section 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Evidence suggested Lucy suffered non-accidental blunt force trauma inflicted by at least three separate assaults, which were directed at Lucy’s head, her forelimbs or ribs, and her abdomen. Evidence additionally suggested the injuries would have been painful and were consistent with being dealt by a person. However, the Court determined that, due to the case’s circumstantial evidence and relying on Jaffrey having “near exclusive access” to Lucy, there was a reasonable doubt to Jaffrey’s involvement in the offence.

In their reasoning, the Court went through the presumption of innocence and what “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” entailed. They mentioned both concepts being fundamental to the justice system, how “reasonable doubt” cannot be based on sympathy or prejudice but rather common sense, and that it is insufficient to prove someone is probably guilty while not necessary to prove they are absolutely guilty. They also highlighted both credibility (being a witness’ veracity) and reliability (witness’ accuracy) being important. The Court used the principles of R v Ryon 2019 ABCA 36 to set out the procedure that

  1. If the evidence of the accused is believed, the accused must be acquitted
  2. Even if the evidence of the accused is not believed, if it raises a reasonable doubt, the crown has not met its burden and the accused must be acquitted
  3. If the court is uncertain of whether to believe the evidence of the accused, or the competing evidence, the accused must be acquitted; and
  4. Even if the evidence of the accused is rejected, or it fails to raise a reasonable doubt, it must be asked whether on the basis of the evidence accepted, the crown proved each and every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized there was no direct evidence of how Lucy was injured or who was responsible. They outlined the principles of circumstantial evidence from R v Villaroman 2016 SCC 33, saying an inference of guilt from circumstantial evidence should only be drawn if that is the only reasonable conclusion that remains from the evidence. However, the Court cautioned against drawing inferences too readily and that all other reasonable explanations must be considered, as well as the absence of evidence. Conclusions which are alternative to the guilt of the accused must be considered even if they have not been proven on actual facts.

The Court accepted that Lucy was violently assaulted from human activity based on the evidence given from medical experts using background medical examination records and visual observations from the doctors that treated Lucy. The expert testimony regarded Lucy’s condition after the injuries and the evidence showing her injuries involved blunt force trauma rather than a chronic condition or self-induced accident. They also found Jaffrey’s evidence to be reasonable and credible, with stories being corroborated by other sources. There were periods of the day where the accused was present and alone with Lucy, but he was not the only one in that position. Near exclusive access is highly relevant, and if there had been other incriminating circumstances, there may have been enough to establish responsibility for the offence. However, there was no evidence of motivation to harm nor any physical evidence.

Other relevant facts to the case included testimony that the accused owned two Weimaraner dogs who lived with both himself and Lucy’s owner, and that he was often away for his job and not at the residence on the day of the injury. He believed one of his dogs had caused the injury, due to a previous incident where one of the dogs had bit and punctured Lucy’s tail. While having come and gone from the residence multiple times, the accused denied seeing Lucy the day the injuries were suffered.

The Court determined it would be dangerous and unreasonable to conclude that the accused had the exclusive opportunity to commit the offence by eliminating others with a similar opportunity on the strength of no more than similar denials and the perceived unlikelihood that they may be the responsible party. There was a reasonable doubt meaning conviction could not be founded.

The accused was found not guilty.

https://canlii.ca/t/k1883
R. v. Jaffrey 2023 ABCJ 241

R v Kirkby, 2023 ABCJ 171

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Cat,
Type of Distress: Killing of a cat by hitting their head against a wall several times
Sentence: Suspended sentence with probation for two years; Animal prohibition order for 10 years that prohibits owning or having the care, custody, or control of an animal or bird.
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

A twenty-seven (27) year old Indigenous male accused with a number of intellectual disabilities, plead guilty to the killing of his cat (unnamed). The cat died after their head was hit against a wall about six (6) times in rapid succession which was a response by the accused to the cat hissing. He then phoned his foster mother and told his psychiatrist, which led to the matter being given to the police and the accused being charged under s.445.1 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Citing Chen, the Court felt that the offence evoked a strong visceral reaction to the “senseless killing of a helpless, sentient being” (para. 11). The Court also believed that the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence should be given primary consideration but, given the aggravating and mitigating factors, jail time would not achieve those goals.

The mitigating factors considered were Kirkby’s guilty plea and taking responsibility for his actions, his cooperation with police, providing the only evidence supporting his prosecution, his genuine remorse for the incident, the results of the Gladue report, and his underlying psychological conditions which included Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Reactive Detachment Disorder, and a Cannabis Use Disorder. The aggravating factor considered was that he was recently released from hospital with new anti-psychotic medication, and that he was supposed to receive a new dose a week prior to the incident which did not happen.

Given all the factors, the Court recognized the seriousness of the offence, and that abuse of a pet is always serious. However, it did not accept a submission that a pet dying is an aggravating factor by itself. In addition, the Justice was satisfied that the case was not one of deliberate sadistic abuse, but rather one of emotional dysregulation. Because of that, they expressed that jail was not the only method to express denunciation. The Court concluded that jail should be a last resort and no sentence should be harsher than what is necessary to accomplish the intended objectives of the sentence when considering the principles of crafting sentences and the sentencing objectives under s 718 of the Criminal Code. Considering the accused’s young age and conditions, the Justice believed they would be extremely vulnerable in jail and susceptible to anti-social influences.

In sentencing, the Court was deciding between a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) and Suspended Sentence Probation, noting that the potential consequences of a breach for the latter can be every bit as serious of breaching a CSO, if not more given that under a Suspended Sentence Probation as the potential consequences do not diminish the closer one gets to the end of the order.

It was worth noting the Court also considered that Kirkby had no prior criminal record, which was not necessarily a mitigating factor, but it was a “lack of an aggravating factor” (para. 23).

https://canlii.ca/t/jzcc5
R v Kirkby 2023 ABCJ 171

Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) c. Tremblay, 2022 QCCQ 14287

Statute: Animal Welfare and Safety Act, CQLR c B-3.1 (Loi sur le bien-être et la sécurité de l'animal),
Section: s 5, 68
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Other, Unknown,
Animal: Horse,
Type of Distress: Failing to ensure that safety and wellbeing of an animal was not compromised
Sentence: Expert defence witness deemed uncredible; trial to proceed without them
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)), Provincial case (Procedure),

This case involves a voir dire to confirm the credentials of an expert witness the defence would like to call upon for testimony on behalf of the accused, who had been charged under provincial legislation for failing to ensure that the safety or well-being of an animal was not compromised.

The accused wished to have Dr. Fortin declared an expert in animal welfare. However, the court found that defence counsel was unable to demonstrate Dr. Fortin could appropriately act in that capacity on the issue in dispute because they were not aware of the facts of Tremblay’s case and also due to previous disciplinary decisions against Dr. Fortin.

The court referred to the R c Mohan 1994 CanLII 80, where the Supreme Court specified the circumstances in which expert evidence is admissible. While it was determined that Dr. Fortin had the necessary knowledge for equines and experience that would help the court understand animal welfare, there were concerns around credibility. It was revealed that Dr. Fortin had been providing on-site care for when the Equi-Centre that the accused was charged with failing to ensure adequate care of, leading the court to question why they did not intervene, especially when the inspectors and a MAPAQ veterinarians have found several shortcomings in 4 months (para. 20).

In addition, the court found that experts being called to testify must not only base their opinion on science but would also be obliged to defend their professional position, in this case with regard to her visits to the Equi-Nature Centre. The court also doubted the relevance of any testimony given Dr. Fortin being unaware of the facts and even the accused who had admitted that they did not know what Dr. Fortin would say. Dr. Fortin also testified that she had only recently became aware of studies on animal welfare. After being cross examined on previous disciplinary hearings, it was unclear whether Dr. Fortin would testify honestly. Those disciplinary hearings from the province’s governing body via the Disciplinary Council of the Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec included:

  1. Having invoked inaccurate information that could mislead public on a radio interview
  2. Allowed a person not a member of the order to carry out osteopathic treatment on a Siberian tiger even though these are acts exclusive to the profession
  3. Carried out the castration of a dog in an unsuitable place; and
  4. Failing to respond, as quickly as possible, to two requests for information made to them during an investigation.

The court stated they could not believe in the sincerity of Dr. Fortin when they had to confront her with the documents to learn about the truth of her disciplinary past, which included periodic deregistration, reprimands, limiting of practice, and fines.

The Court concluded that they could not find Dr. Fortin to be able to objectively testify on animal welfare when they had been found guilty of ethical breaches and hiding disciplinary decisions regarding animals herself. Dr. Fortin was not deemed to qualify as an expert witness, and the court ordered that the matter proceed without her.

https://canlii.ca/t/k04ht
R v Tremblay 2022 QCCQ 14287

R v Vukmanich, [2014] ABPC 1541

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445; s. 110, s. 253
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Stabbing police dog to death while evading capture and arrest
Sentence: 26 months imprisonment, including 18 months for killing Quanto; a 25-year prohibition from pet ownership, and 5-year prohibition from driving
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges), Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

On October 7, 2013, the accused was charged with driving a vehicle while impaired by drugs, having possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, having possession of a stolen licence plate, evading police in a motor vehicle by failing to stop when signaled to do so, resisting arrest, and killing a police service dog. This case became the basis for Quanto’s Law, or the Justice for Animals in Service Act which made it a Criminal Code offence with additional penalties for killing or injuring law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals.

The accused had been fleeing from the police after an attempt was made to pull him over. The car that he was driving finally came to a stop once the tires were flattened from the defendant driving over multiple curbs. Police dog Quanto was released to apprehend the accused, and once the dog reached him, he stabbed the dog repeatedly with the knife and killing him.

The lengthy decision on sentencing from the court includes useful comments regarding relationships with animals, such as “humans form bonds with animals. Often very strong bonds. And these bonds can be just as strong as they are sometimes with humans and are an integral part of the fabric of our society” and that the accused’s killing of Quanto was “not just an attack on the dog […] — just as an attack on a fellow human being is not just an attack on that individual. It is an attack on your society. And it is an attack on what is meaningful in society and the values that the members of our society care about and sometimes care about deeply”(p.10, para 3-4).

The accused was sentenced to 26 months of incarceration, including 18 months for killing Quanto, a 25-year prohibition from pet ownership, and a 5-year prohibition from driving.

R. v. Vukmanich 2014 AJ 1541

R. v. Chopra, 2024 ONCJ 51

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Beating and slamming six-month-old puppy on hard floor, then tossing crate with puppy inside during argument with partner
Sentence: 12-month conditional sentence with first six months under house arrest and remainder under curfew; two years of probation and a three-year animal prohibition order
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

As reported by the accused’s partner with whom he shared an apartment, the accused abused their 6–7-month-old puppy Max for urinating on the floor, dragging Max to his crate and violently hitting him in the face and neck area. After placing Max in the crate, the accused flipped the crate upside down with the puppy still inside. An argument ensued between the accused and his partner regarding his treatment of the puppy, where the partner was told to “shut the f— up” and “go inside the bedroom and go to sleep“(para. 5), the accused then reached into the crate and grabbed Max by the neck, then slammed him onto the hard floor. After the attack, Max remained silent and vomited approximately five times. The accused’s partner called police, and the accused left the home.

When police attended, the accused’s partner showed them CCTV video of the incident, after which they contacted 3-1-1 and created a protective order. The accused returned to the apartment a short time later and police were called to re-attend, where he was placed under arrest. Max was seized and taken to a veterinarian hospital out of fear he had a concussion. Max has since recovered from his injuries.

The accused pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering under the Criminal Code.

In the decision, the Court quotes from Chen at para. 21 regarding Parliament’s evolving attitude towards the status of domestic animals. While it was aggravating the assault on Max was somewhat prolonged, while cursing and verbally abusing his domestic partner, the mitigating factors were the guilty plea, the accused’s steps towards acknowledging and addressing his anger management problems and no criminal history of violence with this incident being out of character. It was determined that a conditional sentence of 12 months (including six months of house arrest, and six months of a curfew), probation of two years with conditions, and a three-year prohibition order against possessing animals was a suitable sentence.

https://canlii.ca/t/k2gvj
R. v. Chopra, 2024 ONCJ 51

Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) c. Frenière 2023 QCCQ 6007

Statute: Animal Welfare and Safety Act, CQLR c B-3.1 (Loi sur le bien-être et la sécurité de l'animal), Regulations on the Safety and Welfare of Cats and Dogs (Règlement sur la sécurité et le bien-être des chats et des chiens RLRQ, c B-3.1, r.10.1),
Section: Article 36 of the Regulations
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Dog breeder failed to provide adequate space for a female dog to isolate herself from her litter
Sentence: Found guilty; $1000 fine to be paid within 12 months
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)), Provincial case (Due dilligence), Sentencing (Fines),

Freniere, a dog breeder, was charged under the Quebec Regulations on the Safety and Welfare of Cats and Dogs for failing to ensure a dog giving birth under their care had the ability to isolate herself from her litter according to her needs. Freniere was found guilty of the offence and ordered to pay a $1000 fine without costs within 12 months. The offence was noted after an inspector from the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Good noted that a dog had given birth the day before and there was no place to isolate themselves according to their needs. Freniere did not see the usefulness of having a spot for isolation, however he decided despite that to build benches the next day, allowing the dog to climb onto them in order to isolate herself from her litter.

The question was whether the court could rule on the usefulness of a provision in the regulation, and whether Freniere having constructed benches after the inspector’s visit constitutes a defense of due diligence after violating the regulation.

The trial judge found based on Directeur des poursuites criminelles et penales c Gagnon 2023 QCCQ 504 that as a result of the separation of powers, it was not up to the court to rule on whether legislation was useful. Their role was to determine whether the three essential elements were made out which were:
1. That the defendant is the guardian of
2. A female giving birth and
3. He fails to ensure that this female can isolate herself from her litter, according to her needs.

The trial judge also found that due diligence is the defendant demonstrating actions taken in order to avoid the commission of an offence. By only constructing benches after the offence was already noted, Freniere could not plead due diligence.

The trial judge took into account the financial difficulties of Freniere, and with the significant minimum fine that came with the sentence, decided to waive costs, leaving only the $1000 fine with 12 months to pay.

https://canlii.ca/t/k04j1
Director of Prosecutions Criminal and Penal Proceedings v Frenièr 2023 QCCQ 6007 translated

R. v. Gillingwater 2023 SKPC 2

Statute: Animal Protection Act (SK),
Section: s. 4(2), s. 23(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Saskatchewan,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Improper care and neglect of between 40 to 60+ dogs in one home, including two found deceased and one in need of euthanasia due to her condition
Sentence: Found guilty under s 4(2)
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)), Provincial case (Distress), Provincial case (Due dilligence), Provincial case (Procedure), Suffering, Suitable care,

Between October 21st and December 15th, 2021, animal protection officers visited the home of the two co-accused. The initial visit was due to a complaint about possible abuse, and the subsequent visits were to ensure that the accused were complying with orders given by the officers.

Conditions inside the home included feces and urine-soaked floors that created unsafe levels of ammonia and no ventilation, dogs actively defecating and urinating on the floor, at will, during the inspections, and dogs locked in crates without food or water in the middle of the day. Also, two dead dogs were found in the home, and another dog needed to be euthanized due to her health complications.

At the time of the visits, there were 40+ dogs in the home, but historically there were as many as 60+ dogs in the home. Officers provided orders to clean up the home and reduce the number of dogs, but the accused had made no efforts to follow them, and eventually 13 dogs were voluntarily surrendered and 32 dogs were seized by officers.

At trial, the accused were found to be either hostile while testifying or lying and providing misleading and contradicting testimony. Defendants were convicted under s. 4(2), being persons responsible for the dogs and had caused
or permitted the animals to be or to continue to be in distress.

https://canlii.ca/t/jv71v
R v Gillingwater 2023 SKPC 2

Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONSC 272

Statute: Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act,
Section: s. 33, s. 35
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Dogs were removed from business for distress related to tether length and quality of shelter and noncompliance with provincial orders.
Sentence: Application dismissed: Amount of debt due from first decision was $506,760; with this decision is now $1,524,640.
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)), Provincial case (Costs), Provincial case (Disposition of animals), Common defenses (Mistake of fact), Provincial case (Procedure), Sentencing (Restitution orders), Suitable care, Unnecessary,

This case is the second application for judicial review of animal care costs billed to the applicant (Windrift Adventures Inc.) after seizure and retention of over 200 dogs in September 2021 which is but a part of an aggregate total just over $2.3 million dollars. The compliance orders were made in relation to sled dogs at two locations.

The applicant claims that the costs are unreasonable as they are in relation to tether size and the size and quality of shelter for the dogs that have been removed from his accountability. It is also stated that his litigation strategy is to draw out the proceedings for more than two years which has exacerbated his costs (para.4). The costs are not fines, as the applicant suggests, but a reimbursement of fees for daily care of the dogs.

The Court noted that these investigations are designed to resolve in a timely manner, particularly because there are live animals involved, but the extension of this matter due to the applicant’s refusal to participate reasonably has caused poor results for the animals and for the people of Ontario due to these exorbitant costs (para. 7).

Taking the applicants grounds for appeal into consideration, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

https://canlii.ca/t/k26pq
Windrift Adventures Inc v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector 2024 ONSC 272

R v Collins, 2024 ABCJ 13

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 163.1(4)(b), s. 163.1(3)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Dog, Unknown,
Type of Distress: Possession and distribution of child pornography, including bestiality between a dog and a female child.
Sentence: Global sentence of 2 years less a day incarceration, followed by two years of probation; DNA order; 20-year SOIRA order; Forfeiture of any child pornography and/or offence-related device
Legal Issue:

The 24-year-old accused with no prior criminal history came to the attention of authorities via various internet and social media provider alerts regarding child sexual abuse content, which totalled 173 files and images to Google and Dropbox, with a few shared in chat messages through Kik in the period ranging between September 14 and December 18, 2021. Alerts were sent to the Southern Alberta Internet Child Exploitation (SAICE) unit for follow up investigations, who were able to trace the IP addresses to the accused’s address and obtained a search warrant.

Forensic examination of the accused’s devices included 28 images on his cell phone, 442 images and 116 videos on his iPad added between July 2015 and February 2022. One of the images depicted acts of bestiality occurring between a female child and a dog. He denied possessing any images on his cell phone but admitted to possession of child pornography on his iPad, as well as sharing images with other users and accessing and sharing child pornography on Snapchat and Discord. The accused pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography and one count of making available or distributing child pornography.

The Agreed Statement of Facts showed that the accused’s behaviour was a calculated and long-term activity and, although the collection was not overly large, it contained some of the most graphic and shocking material that the Court had ever reviewed. The only mitigating circumstance was the early entry guilty plea (para. 31). The Court found that although the accused had had an unfortunate and traumatic upbringing, his explanation that he ventured into the area of child pornography seeking a connection with a social group defied logic (para. 33).

The Court issued a global sentence of 2 years less a day incarceration followed by two years of probation, after noting that mandatory minimum sentences for possession and creation of child pornography have been found to be unconstitutional pursuant to section 12 of the Charter (para.44). However, the Court was not satisfied that the sentencing was excessive or disproportionate in regard to the distribution charge to where it violated the accused’s Charter rights. Therefore, while the possession charge would see something close to a one-year jail sentence and the distribution charge demanded a minimum sentence of one year, looking at the totality of the sentence, the Court was satisfied it was appropriate because it also allowed for the additional two-year period of supervision which would assist in the accused’s rehabilitation.

Ancillary orders include a SOIRA order for 20 years, DNA order was to be executed in custody, and forfeiture orders sought by the Crown for the offence-related property and exhibits were granted.

https://canlii.ca/t/k28cf
R v Collins 2024 ABCJ 13

R v Sernoskie, 2023 ONSC

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 160(1), s 346(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Bestiality, Other,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Committing bestiality and offering his four dogs to be sexually abused by others, including for the purpose of extortion
Sentence: 522 days time served (783 with pre-trial credit); three years' probation animal prohibition order for any form of pet or domesticated animal; $400 victim fine surcharge; DNA order; 10-year weapons prohibition order; 20-year SOIRA order (also provincially under Christopher's Law)
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Fines), Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Sentencing (Restitution orders),

In 2021, the accused was arrested and charged with arranging the rapes of four dogs and extortion of a 16-year-old male victim with autism that he had groomed into having a sexual relationship. The crimes came to police attention after the accused became jealous of his victim’s relationship with another young man and called in a report alleging bestiality and possible suicidal ideation. Police investigators followed up, which is when the accused provided them with a photo of his victim, who was young and impaired, sexually abusing a dog.

Further investigation revealed that the accused had used this photo to extort sexual favours from his victim, threatening through text message that he would send the image to the victim’s family and friends, as well as to the police, and report him to the SPCA who would take his dog from him. It was also revealed that the accused was allowing his dogs to be sexually abused by others; people would come in from out of town, including one man who flew in from Alberta (p. 11, para. 30).

The accused pled guilty to committing bestiality under s 160(1) and extortion under s 346(1) of the Criminal Code. The Court’s analysis can best be summarized in the following quote: “Well, I see a lot of disturbing things from this perch of mine but for this year at least, this case tops them all. This crime is truly revolting… I propose that no amount of jail could capture the community’s disgust in respect of the man making arrangements for someone to repeatedly have sex with dogs. These facts are stomach turning in a way that just cannot be reflected in some kind of number.” (p. 17, para. 15-25).

The accused was sentenced to 522 days’ time served (783 with pre-trial credit); three years’ probation that includes no contact with victim and he is not in possession of any form of pet or domesticated animal; $400 victim fine surcharge; DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition order, and the SOIRA order to run for 20 years (also provincially under Christopher’s Law).

A publication ban is in effect on this decision, but the provided link is to an Ottawa Citizen article that summarizes this case well.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-valley-chip-truck-man-admits-to-bestiality-ring-extortion