A dog struggled on the operating table, while being anaesthetized which led to his veterinarian being charged with causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal, for allegedly stabbing Remington in the nose with a needle and punching him in the ribs.
The cross appeal is dismissed. Harding’s appeal is allowed and the charges against him dismissed.
A volunteer of the SPCA found several dogs in pens or chained on the property of the accused (Mr. and Mrs. Clarke) without food or water. The circumstances were allegedly unchanged on a third visit to the site, so the volunteer had all dogs seized and placed in new homes, including the healthy dogs. No explanation had ever been given to the Clarkes as to why the dogs were seized. According to the judge, the volunteer was in no position to conduct a proper investigation under the criminal code and should not have been given this authority by the SPCA.
A veterinarian’s examination of the dogs showed that one was too thin but not necessarily underfed, and the others were generally in good condition with no evidence of dehydration. Mr. and Mrs. Clarke were charged with cruelty to animals with little to no supportive evidence. Both were then acquitted as the evidence was insufficient in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that either Mr. or Mrs. Clarke willfully allowed or caused their animals to suffer. The mere fact that the dogs were thin was not proof of cruelty in and of itself.
Accused acquitted.
Good analysis of mens rea requirements for neglect and unnecessary – however, that analysis should now be done with reference to BCCA in Gerling.
Nicholls, convicted of an offence under s. 402(1) (c) of the Criminal Code for wilfully neglecting domestic animals. Baird, an officer of the SPCA, appeals under s. 762 of the Criminal Code. She argues that provisions of the Animal Protection Act should apply, vesting ownership of the animals in other parties than Nicholls.
Accused was convicted of criminal neglect. The accused was given a suspended sentence with various unique orders. There was no time frame indicated on the probation order. On appeal it was agreed the probation order was incorrectly ordered and the mater was remitted back to correct. No significant discussion of the facts of the case.
According to the veterinarian the dog “looked well cared for.” However, there was a serious injury to her neck. Her skin was broken and the injury circled around her entire neck. Dr. Martyn testified that there was an “extremely noticeable smell” coming from the dog as a result of infection. Dr. Martyn described the wound as being “quite infected.” She testified that the injury could have been caused by a rope being placed tightly around the dog’s neck and cutting into the dog’s skin (breathlessness). Dr. Martyn indicated that the injury was approximately eight days to two weeks old. Bennett agreed that he had placed a rope around the dog’s neck, but denied that he had secured it “tightly” or that he saw any signs of the dog being in pain or discomfort.
Trial for an accused charged with criminal neglect. The accused claimed the dog broke free for her collar and he then secured the dog with a piece of rope. He never replaced the collar. Two weeks later the family when on a trip and a friend looked after the dog who observed the rope was too tight causing injury to the neck and infection. Vet’s opinion the injury as 8 to 14 days old.
The accused was convicted after trial. While the dog was otherwise well cared off and the accused didn’t intentionally try to injure the dog, by not checking on the neck for 2 weeks it was a marked departure from the standard of care and no legal justification existed.
Case provides an excellent summary of the law concerning negligence mens rea.
After coming home and seeing his girlfriend and infant eating without him, he threw food at his girlfriend, and then punched and kicked her. Then he picked up a cigarette roller, and threw it at a kitten, striking the animal, and cutting its lip open. The Accused then tore a door off its hinges, and threatened to kill Power if she went out that evening. Prior history of violence towards the current Complainant.
Sentencing hearing on a series of domestic violence offences. The factual allegations of one of which including throwing an object at a kitten and causing a bloody lip that was police witnessed. Accused sentenced to 1 year jail.
White threatened to kill his former girlfriend’s two cats and then killed one and injured another. The cats were found in pillowcases.
Sentencing after guilty plea for animal abuse and threats to animals and failing to appear for court. He threatened to kill his former girlfriend’s cats during a dispute and then killed one cat and injured the other. He was upset over a possible eviction and put the cats in a cloth bag and beat them. Dead cat had a broken paw.
Significant criminal record with violence. Pre-sentence report was that he was not suitable for community supervision.
Sentence: (1) Six months prison (2 months for injuring, 3 months for killing, 2 months f or threatening, 1 month for failing to appear in court — reduced to 6 months based on totality principle — Sentences were consecutive); (2) 12 months probation; (3) 10 year animal prohibition
Accused arrived at mother’s house as complainant’s dog was defecating on lawn. Complainant did not have bag to pick up faeces. Accused and complainant had argument and accused said he would “shoot” or “kill” complainant and his dog. Accused was charged with two counts of uttering threats contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) and (c) of Criminal Code.
After trial sentencing of accused found guilty of uttering a threat and FTA Court. Out of frustration caused by dogs defecating on his mother’s lawn, and the victim’s words and actions, Lyver threatened to kill the victim and his dog.
Held: Minor CR, after trial, suspended sentence and probation
Bellows treated her neighbours antagonistically. She repeatedly made threats to harm them and their dog. She was duly convicted of these charges under s. 264.1(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Criminal Code.
Accused convicted of uttering threats against her neighbours including threats to poison their dog. While she had no intention of carrying out the threat she did intend the threats to be taken seriously.
Connors was convicted of uttering threats to kill an animal contrary to s. 264.1(1))(c), of the Criminal Code. He appealed this conviction but failed to raise questions of law.
Accused was convicted after trial of uttering threats to kill an animal. He received a conditional discharge and 1 year probation. There had been issues with the dogs on the complainant’s property. The accused told the complainants that if they didn’t get rid of the dogs he was going to and he hates dogs and he was going to kill the dogs if they didn’t clean up after them.
Accused testified and denied the threats. The trial judge accepted the evidence of the Crown witnesses and convicted the accused.
Trial judge’s sentence of a conditional discharge and one year of unsupervised probation is upheld.
Defendant’s leave to appeal is denied.
The appellant pleaded guilty before Magistrate Cramm of the Provincial Court to a charge under Sec. 400(a) of the Criminal Code of killing cattle. The Magistrate sentenced Hunt to nine months imprisonment, from which sentence he now appeals. Leave to appeal is granted because, on the face of it, the sentence appears to be a severe one, and there is evidence that the appellant and his accomplice voluntarily confessed their crime to the owner shortly after committing it. However, while severe, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the sentence as imposed.
Appeal from sentence of 9 months jail for killing cattle. Appeal dismissed. He had a lengthy criminal record.
https://canlii.ca/t/1nn4n