R. v. C. (R.), 2010 ONCJ 447

Statute: Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act,
Section: s 348
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Dog, Reptile,
Type of Distress: Killing of a pet gecko with a microwave during a break and enter and abusing a family dog by covering him with paint during a breaking and entering/vandalism and theft spree
Sentence: 14-month youth sentence, but because he had already spent significant time in pre-trial custody, he received credit that reduced the remainder of his sentence to 171 days. The remaining sentence was divided into 57 days in secure custody, 57 days in open custody, and 57 days under community supervision, followed by 18 months of probation; 10-year weapons prohibition and DNA sample order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

R.C. was a youth who, together with a co-accused, committed a series of residential break and enters. While the thefts themselves were serious, the case was particularly notable because of the senseless destruction inside the homes. The offenders vandalized multiple residences by spreading paint, leaving feces on floors, destroying personal belongings, and ransacking entire houses. They also microwaved and killed a nine-year-old child’s pet gecko and covered a family dog in paint. The judge described the damage as “mind-blowing” and emphasized that there was no apparent motive beyond amusement while intoxicated (para 2).

The offender had a significant youth criminal record and was already subject to multiple probation orders when these offences were committed. A psychological assessment diagnosed him with conduct disorder, ADHD (hyperactive-impulsive type), substance abuse disorder, and antisocial personality traits. Although he came from a relatively stable home with a supportive mother and step-father, he had a long history of defying authority, skipping school, associating with negative peers, and abusing drugs and alcohol. The clinical assessment also noted that there existed indication that the biological father of R.C exhibited similar antisocial & criminal behaviours, which presents as another strong factor to explain the accused’s conduct. He admitted that he and his co-accused committed the break-ins because they considered themselves “professionals” and, after becoming drunk, decided to “have fun and trash the homes” (para 7). While in custody, however, he showed meaningful improvement by participating in counselling, Alcoholics Anonymous, educational programs, and life skills training, and he expressed genuine remorse for his actions.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, finding that further incarceration was necessary despite the offender’s recent progress. The judge accepted that youth sentencing principles required the least restrictive sentence capable of promoting rehabilitation and reintegration, but concluded that the gravity of the offences, the offender’s criminal history, repeated failures on probation, and ongoing need for structure justified additional custody. The court agreed with the Crown that these offences were far more serious than a typical residential break and enter because of the malicious destruction and cruelty inflicted on the family’s pets.

This case is particularly relevant because it demonstrates how animal cruelty can significantly aggravate an already serious property offence. The judge repeatedly emphasized that the deliberate killing of a child’s pet and the abuse of the family dog elevated the offending well beyond ordinary break and enters. The victim impact statements also highlighted the lasting emotional harm caused, particularly to the children, who lost their sense of security and were traumatized by the death of the pet gecko. Although the court acknowledged the offender’s mental health diagnoses, substance abuse issues, and encouraging rehabilitation while in custody, it stressed that accountability remained necessary given the shocking and senseless nature of the offences and the profound impact on the victims.

https://canlii.ca/t/2csz4
R v C (R)

R c. S. (L.-P.), 2003 CarswellQue 780

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 434, 445, and 446(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Alleged distress (per the Crown's theory) would have been the dog being struck/killed with an iron bar or left chained inside a burning shed
Sentence: Accused found guilty of arson (s. 434 C.cr.) but acquitted of both animal cruelty charges; no sentence set out in this decision
Legal Issue: Suffering, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

This case involved a 13-year-old adolescent charged with arson (s. 434 C.cr.) after deliberately setting fire to a wooden shed on December 17, 2002, resulting in the death of the shed tenant’s dog (a doberman/German shepherd hybrid) whose body was found in the debris, as well as a separate charge of having intentionally killed an animal or caused it to suffer pain, suffering, or injury without necessity (ss. 445, 446(1)(a) C.cr.).

The accused admitted responsibility for the fire but denied having intentionally harmed or killed the dog, claiming he did not know the dog was inside and had unsuccessfully tried to free it by pulling on its chain once he heard it. The Crown’s theory was that the accused had either struck or killed the dog with an iron bar before dragging it into the shed and setting the fire to conceal his act, or had lured the dog into the shed and fastened its chain to the ground with metal hooks before igniting the fire; this theory rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, since no witness saw the act and no physical evidence (such as a weapon, drag marks, or forced entry) was found.

Applying the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) and the standard for circumstantial evidence from R. v. Cooper, the court found the accused’s version of events plausible and consistent with the physical evidence (the fire’s point of origin, the location of the debris he admitted throwing, the location of the dog’s body, and an independent witness’s account of the accused playing alone in the yard without hearing the dog). The court held that while it was probable the accused had killed or trapped the dog, this was not the only reasonable inference available on the evidence, given key gaps such as the absence of proof of the cause of death, no weapon found, no evidence of forced entry, and no proof the dog had been beaten or dragged into the shed.

The court found the accused guilty of intentionally causing a fire (arson, s. 434 C.cr.) but acquitted him of both animal cruelty charges — intentionally killing an animal (s. 445(a) C.cr.) and causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily (s. 446(1)(a) C.cr.) — on the basis that the Crown had not proven guilt on those counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case is a useful illustration of the application of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility test and the R. v. Cooper circumstantial evidence standard in the animal cruelty context, showing that even where circumstances make an accused’s guilt “probable,” this is legally insufficient — the Crown must eliminate other reasonable inferences to secure a conviction. The decision is also notable for the split verdict: the accused was convicted of the underlying property offence (arson) while being acquitted of the animal cruelty charges arising from the same set of facts, illustrating how a young accused’s confession and consistent narrative on one charge can still leave reasonable doubt on a related but factually distinct charge, particularly where physical/forensic evidence linking the accused to the animal’s death is absent.

https://nextcanada-westlaw-com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/Document/I4b0209ea32516a6fe0440003ba0d6c6d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0
R c S (L-P)

R. v. Hall, 2025 MBPC 34

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss. 490.012, s. 161, s. 109, s. 164.2
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Bestiality, Other,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Possession of child sexual abuse material including bestiality
Sentence: Three years imprisonment; 20-year SOIRA order, 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA and device forfeiture orders, as well as restrictions on access to internet and children
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Common defenses (Legal excuse), Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

The 41-year-old accused Gregory Hall was charged with possession of 427 images and 34 unique videos across a number of devices, including 5,163 files categorized as “investigative interest” on his Samsung device. These files contain mostly images of females aged between 8 to 12, with images and videos depicting bestiality as an aggravating feature. This material was part of a broader collection characterized by a “high degree of depravity”.

The accused denied any sexual interest in child and recollection of collecting the images and videos due to the memory loss caused by brain tumor and subsequent seizures starting in 2020. He submitted a letter from his oncologist stating that his type of tumor can cause him to “experience periods of short-memory loss.”

The sentencing judge firmly rejected the accused’s claim that his medical condition reduced his moral culpability or justified a non-custodial sentence. The court held there was “no evidence of any nexus between the accused’s medical condition and his offending” (para. 62). There was no evidence it impaired his understanding that his actions were wrong or harmful. The court emphasized that for CSAM offences, denunciation and deterrence are paramount. The horrific nature of the material, including bestiality, the large collection, the number of child victims, and the significant harm caused, demanded a penitentiary sentence to reflect societal condemnation.

https://canlii.ca/t/kbstl
R v Hall 2025 MBPC 34

R. c. Richer 2025 QCCQ 1315

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 267(a), 267(b), 279(2)(a), 145(5)(a)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Unknown,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Criminal history of animal cruelty in a domestic violence context
Sentence: 12 months' imprisonment, plus a 10-year weapons prohibition and two years' probation
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

The accused assaulted his intimate partner while intoxicated during an argument. He struck and pushed the victim, held her on the ground with his knee on her neck, and threw a chair in her direction. The victim suffered physical injuries and psychological consequences. After his arrest and release on conditions, the accused later breached those conditions by contacting the victim and violating his curfew. He ultimately pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and breaches of release conditions.

The Court noted numerous aggravating factors, including the severity of the assault, the impact on the victim, the accused’s intoxication at the time of the offence, repeated breaches of court orders, and his prior criminal history. In 2014, the accused was given a suspended sentence and probation with 125 hours of service for assault, uttering threats, forcible confinement, animal cruelty and possession of a weapon while prohibited from doing so, all in a context of domestic violence (para. 24). Mitigating factors included the accused’s guilty pleas; that he is an “asset to society” as a master mechanic and that the accused completed the follow-up offered by the Addiction Rehabilitation Centre regarding their problematic use of alcohol.

The Court sentenced the accused to 12 months’ imprisonment, finding that a custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the violence and to achieve denunciation and deterrence. This case made reference to the violence link between interpersonal violence and animal abuse, as the Court referred to the historical animal cruelty as part of the broader pattern of violent behaviour considered during sentencing.

https://canlii.ca/t/kbp21
R. c. Richer 2025 QCCQ 1315 (FR)

R v Hijazi, 2025 ABCJ 41

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 163.1(4)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Bestiality, Other,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Possession of child sexual abuse material including bestiality
Sentence: Two years less a day conditional sentence with strict house arrest. 240 hours of community service within the first 18 months of the Conditional sentence Order, followed by three years of probation with conditions, plus a DNA order.
Legal Issue: Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"),

Google alerted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that a user, Abdul-Rahman Hijazi, had downloaded 54 illegal images. Police executed a warrant at his home and seized ten devices containing 4,088 images and four videos of child pornography. The images depict explicit sexual activity involving children, including bondage and bestiality. Almost all of the images were computer-generated, and all but one of the images involving sexual activity and the images of bondage and bestiality were anime or computer-generated.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code. The Crown sought incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:

Applying the s. 718.2 sentencing principles, the Judge identified the aggravating factors: the offending conduct spanned nearly three years, the size of the collection of over 4000 images, and some of the material depicting anime images of bestiality and bondage. Mitigating factors included Mr. Hijazi’s youth, lack of prior record, low risk of reoffending, early guilty plea, expressed remorse, and voluntary counselling. The court also emphasized that while possession of computer-generated child sexual abuse images is grave conduct, it does not involve the same level of harm as material created through the abuse of real children. Accordingly, a lower sentence than what would apply to comparable real-child material was warranted.

The presentencing report revealed that the offender began having feelings that he wanted to transition his gender to female in 2022 and became depressed about his gender. The offender was reluctant to disclose these feelings as it would lead to separation from his religious and cultural identity but has recently started transitioning to female (para. 16)

A forensic psychiatrist conducted a risk and mental health assessment, where the offender was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, ADHD, likely adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, and depressive features and assessed at low risk to sexually re-offend. The report writer considered whether the possession of child pornography was connected to reported sexual abuse when the offender experienced at ages 13 and 14. The report stated that the offender “admits guilt, remorse, repentance but never truly explains what was the drive and motivation in accessing these images and videos, ranging age wise from age 3 to age 16 of female bodies; there could be a connection with a sexual abuse he would have been victim of by an older cousin” (para. 23).

Court’s Decision:

The Court imposed a two-year less a day conditional sentence with strict house arrest to give effect to the primary sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, as well as the secondary sentencing principles of restraint and rehabilitation. The offender will also be subject to 240 hours of community service within the first 18 months of the Conditional sentence Order, followed by three years of probation with conditions, plus a DNA order.

https://canlii.ca/t/kbgkj
R v Hijazi 2025 ABCJ 41

R. v. Neverson, 2025 ONSC 7121

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: section 445(1)(a), section 718
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Killing a dog in the context of trafficking/relationship violence
Sentence: Time served of just under seven years (reduced due to abuse accused received in pretrial custody at Maplehurst Correction Centre in December 2023)
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment),

The 36-year-old accused Jermaine Never pleaded guilty to 22 offence, including human trafficking, assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawfully killing of a dog, which is contrary to s.445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Neverson had victimized 10 women over 8 years, with the dog-killing incident as part of a pattern of his violent behaviour. This incident occurred when a dog who belonged to one of his female victims had a bathroom accident on the floor, after which he became enraged and beat the dog to death. He then forced the female victim that owned the dog to bury them in a rural area.

The court emphasized Neverson’s extremely high moral culpability across all offences, including the killing of the dog. The act was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of exploitative conduct; his victims were vulnerable women due to their relative youth, poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, isolation, family breakdown, and their history of trauma that the accused intimidated and manipulated, trafficking them as sex trade workers, as well as abused them, kept their money, and left them with very little, treating them as slaved (para. 5). The court cited s. 718.03 of the Criminal Code, which requires that primary consideration be given to denunciation and deterrence when sentencing for offences involving cruelty to animals, and for the sexually exploitative violence exhibited by the accused.

While the dog-killing offence carried a maximum sentence of five years, the court imposed a global sentence for all 22 offences. The sentence for the animal cruelty charge was made concurrent with other sentences, which were reduced due to the treatment he received as a result of the deployment of the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (“ICIT”) at Maplehurst Correctional Complex (“MCC”) in December 2023. The accused’s application for a stay of proceedings due to Charter violations experienced at this time was dismissed (para 71).

The animal cruelty offence reinforced the court’s conclusion that Neverson’s actions were calculated, prolonged, and intended to inflict psychological harm. It contributed to the court’s assessment that his moral blameworthiness was “as high as one could imagine.”

https://canlii.ca/t/kh744
R v Neverson 2025 ONSC 712

R. v. C.C. 2024 QCCQ 1089

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 151(a), 271(a), and 172(1)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Horse,
Type of Distress: Offender exposed child he was sexually abusing to material featuring bestiality
Sentence: Convicted
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges), Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"),

The accused, the stepfather of a minor, was charged with multiple sexual offences against the complainant (aged 10 at the time). During the period of abuse, the accused showed the child a video depicting bestiality (a woman fellating a horse). This incident formed part of the broader pattern of inappropriate and exploitative behaviour.

The court found the complainant’s testimony credible and reliable and rejected the accused’s version of events. The prosecution proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was convicted.

Although the accused was not charged with animal cruelty, this case involves the accused showing a child a video depicting sexual acts with an animal, raising concerns about animal exploitation and abuse. It also reflects a broader criminological pattern in which sexual deviance and violence toward humans intersects with the exploitation of animals (known as the violence link). Presenting such material to a child can contribute to the normalization of harmful and abusive behaviour toward animals.

https://canlii.ca/t/k3nzc
R v CC 2024qccq1089

R. c. Leclerc, Simard, Parent, 2024 QCPC (Cour du Québec), No. 200-01-251910-224

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445(1)(a)(2)(a), 445.1(1)(a)(2)(a), and 446(1)(b)(2)(a)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Killing dogs by hanging, gas chamber (argon), neck-breaking, and CO2 gassing; failure to provide veterinary care; inadequate food and water; non-sterile castration; dogs forced to run while sick, injured, pregnant, or immediately post-partum; unsanitary shelter; physical violence by owner/staff
Sentence: Found guilty, sentencing to follow
Legal Issue: Common defenses (Legal excuse), Maim/Wound/Injure, Ownership/Care/Control, Suffering, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

The three accused — Élizabeth Leclerc, Antoine Simard, and Édouard Parent — operated Expédition Mi-Loup inc., a sled dog tourism and mushing enterprise on Île d’Orléans, Québec. The enterprise ran from at least 2008 until April 2022, when it was shut down following a media report and a police investigation triggered by an eviction call at the premises.

At its peak, the kennel housed approximately 200 dogs. Simard was the owner and operator responsible for all kennel decisions, staffing, food procurement, and the management of the dog population. Leclerc, his partner, handled administration, reservations, and employee payroll. Parent was a handyman responsible for the snowmobile section and the repair shop, and was rarely present in the kennel itself.

Multiple former employees testified for the prosecution, describing a consistent pattern of abuse and neglect spanning years. Dogs were killed by hanging (a rope tied to a barn rafter with the dog projected downward, with executioners pulling on the hind legs if death was not immediate), by a homemade gas chamber built by Simard using his welding knowledge of argon (a domestic chest freezer connected to a gas canister, with dogs placed inside for approximately two minutes), and in some instances by being run over with a snowmobile. Puppies — estimated at between 500 and 1,500 over the period — were killed by placing them in a bucket connected to a snowmobile exhaust (CO2 gassing), by neck-breaking, or by being placed alive in the chest freezer. Simard maintained an elimination list targeting old, sick, or aesthetically undesirable dogs, and was transparent about it with staff. Dogs on the list were killed at night, out of sight of clients. One witness estimated over 1,000 animals eliminated between 2016 and 2022 alone.

No veterinarian ever attended the kennel during the period covered by the charges; veterinary care was entirely absent. Sick and injured dogs were treated by guides using super glue for wounds, horse-dose vermifuge for parasites, and human medication when nothing else was available. Two female dogs died of untreated wounds during this period. Dogs were fed once daily on abattoir scraps — bones, fat, gristle, and occasional meat — sometimes rotten in summer. There was no water in winter; dogs were expected to eat snow. Shelter consisted of plastic barrel kennels placed directly on the ground with no air circulation, and with exposed nail and screw points on the interior.

Dogs were forced to run up to six times daily, including pregnant females and dogs that had recently given birth. Simard managed the kennel through physical violence, kicking and hitting dogs that misbehaved; witnesses described dogs cowering when he entered. An unregulated rubber-band castration program was introduced around 2016, performed in a non-sterile environment. No sterilization of females was ever carried out.

Leclerc was acquitted on all counts; the court found that although she held an administrative role and had some awareness of conditions, the evidence was insufficient to establish the required mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and she exercised no direct control over the animals.

Parent was acquitted on Count 3 via a directed verdict but convicted on Counts 1 and 2 based on evidence of his direct participation in the killing and transport of dogs, his manipulation of the argon canisters, and his statements to witnesses that firearms were more efficient than hanging.

Simard was convicted on all three counts. The court rejected his testimony entirely, finding it evasive and implausible, and held that his self-created overpopulation — resulting directly from his refusal to sterilize females — could not constitute a legitimate excuse for the mass killing of animals. The court further held that where other means of population control were available and accessible, any suffering imposed was without necessity.

Sentencing was pending at the time of this judgment.

Simard_2024QCPC(Verdict Mi-Loup)

R. v. Berg, 2017 ONCJ 163

Statute: R.S.O. 1990, SPCA Act (ON),
Section: s. 11.1(1) and 11.2(2)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Exotic, Reptile,
Type of Distress: Lack of veterinary care, failure to provide adequate food and water, permitting an animal to remain in distress
Sentence: Three fines: $250 on count one, $250 on count two, and $500 on count three, with the third fine being conditionally stayed; $2,500 in restitution to the OSPCA for the cost of caring for the surviving snake, and a five-year prohibition on owning snakes
Legal Issue: Abandoning in distress, Provincial case (Adequate: (providing adequate care)), Provincial case (Costs), Provincial case (Disposition of animals), Provincial case (Distress), Provincial case (Due dilligence), Ownership/Care/Control, Provincial case (Procedure), Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Sentencing (Restitution orders), Provincial case (Sentencing), Suffering, Suitable care,

The accused was convicted in absentia of animal cruelty offences under the Ontario SPCA Act for failing to provide adequate food, water, veterinary care, and general welfare for two snakes. During the execution of a warrant, an Ontario SPCA agent discovered one snake dead and heavily infested with maggots, while a second boa constrictor was found alive but lethargic, dehydrated, and without access to food or water. The surviving snake was seized and placed in the care of the OSPCA. The accused later admitted ownership of the snakes and acknowledged that they had stopped eating, but had not sought veterinary treatment.

Although the accused did not attend trial or sentencing, evidence showed that he became visibly distressed when informed of the potential penalties associated with the charges. The court noted, however, that it was unclear whether this reaction reflected genuine remorse or concern about the prospect of conviction.

In determining an appropriate sentence, the court emphasized several evidentiary limitations. There was insufficient evidence regarding the snakes’ age, expected lifespan, specific temperature requirements, and the reasons why the accused failed to obtain veterinary care. The court therefore declined to rely on these factors when assessing sentence and focused instead on the proven failures to provide food, water, and necessary care.

The judge emphasized that allowing an animal’s condition to deteriorate to the point of death is “a grave matter” (para 13). However, the court also carefully considered mitigating factors, including the defendant’s lack of prior offences.

The court ordered the accused to pay $2,500 in restitution to compensate the OSPCA for the costs of caring for the surviving snake and prohibited him from owning snakes for five years. While the prosecution sought fines of $1,500 per count, the court imposed substantially lower fines, citing the evidentiary limitations, the absence of a prior record, and the principles set out in the 1989 Supreme Court decision, R v P (D.W).

The court also conditionally stayed the sentence on the third count because it arose from the same underlying conduct as the first two convictions, stating “in the event that the defendant is not successful in bringing an appeal from either conviction or sentence on the first two counts, then the conditional stay becomes permanent. Should the defendant bring a successful appeal in relation to counts 1 or 2, then the stay may be lifted” (para. 21).

https://canlii.ca/t/h1s71
R v Berg

R. v. Blackwell and Larson, 2017 BCPC 228

Statute: SPCA Act (BC),
Section: s. 9.1(1) and 9.1(2)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Abuse, Neglect,
Animal: Cattle,
Type of Distress: Beating (hitting, punching, etc.), causing unnecessary distress to cattle under their care
Sentence: Larson was sentenced to a $4,000 fine, a 20-day jail sentence served intermittently on weekends, a one-year prohibition on owning or having custody/control of large animals for remuneration, and probation conditions during the custodial portion of his sentence. Blackwell was sentenced to a $7,000 fine and a three-year prohibition on owning or having custody/control of large animals for remuneration. Both were also subject to Victims of Crime Act surcharges at 15% and time-to-pay orders (2 years each).
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Distress), Sentencing (Fines), Maim/Wound/Injure, Ownership/Care/Control, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Sentencing (Restitution orders), Suffering, Suitable care, Unnecessary,

This case is part of the Chilliwack Cattle Sales investigation, which resulted in the BC SPCA recommending 20 criminal charges to the Crown. The initial case can be found here.

The accused were employees at a large dairy farm in British Columbia and were responsible for the care of cattle during night shifts. An undercover investigation using a hidden camera revealed repeated incidents of animal cruelty and neglect occurring between April and June 2014. The video evidence showed both accused directly engaging in violent conduct toward cows, including hitting, kicking, and using objects such as canes and equipment to strike animals. In addition, cattle were observed being subjected to distressing handling practices, including the use of tractors and chains to lift and move downed animals. The footage also showed Mr. Larson failing to intervene when other employees inflicted harm on animals under his supervision.

Both accused pleaded guilty to offences under the British Columbia Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, specifically causing or permitting cattle to be in distress and failing to protect animals from foreseeable harm. The Crown and defence proceeded by way of a joint submission on sentence, which the court accepted in accordance with the principles set out in R. v. Anthony-Cook. The court imposed a sentence of a $4,000 fine and 20 days of intermittent (weekend) jail for Mr. Larson, along with a one-year prohibition on owning or caring for large animals for remuneration. Mr. Blackwell received a $7,000 fine and a three-year prohibition on owning or caring for large animals for remuneration. Both accused also received probationary conditions and victim fine surcharges.

The judge emphasized deterrence at paragraph 11: “The actions of each of the accused…demonstrates what can only be described as gratuitous violence against the cattle. The sentence that is imposed must send out a message that this type of gratuitous violence against animals will not be tolerated in our society”.

The case highlights the court’s strong reliance on deterrence and denunciation in animal cruelty cases. It also demonstrates how courts treat both direct acts of cruelty and passive failure to intervene as equally serious forms of liability under animal welfare legislation, since Mr. Larson contributed both directly and passively to the distress of the cows through his actions/omissions.

https://canlii.ca/t/h569b
R v Blackwell and Larson