R. v. Bulger, 1978 CarswellPEI 35

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 298(1.1)
Province or Territory: Prince Edward Island,
Offence: Killing, Other,
Animal: Cattle,
Type of Distress: Stealing a cow, dragging the animal behind a vehicle; animal deceased
Sentence: Appeal allowed: Bulger's sentence reduced from three years to two years' imprisonment. Mann's and Arsenault's sentences were each reduced from two years less one day to twelve months' imprisonment.
Legal Issue: Encourage/Aid/Assist, Ownership/Care/Control, Sentencing, Suffering, Unnecessary,

Three accused (Bennett Bulger, Bruce Mann, and Reginald Arsenault) were convicted by a jury of stealing a cow, contrary to s. 298(1.1) of the Criminal Code. The stolen cow belonged to a farmer in Prince Edward Island and had disappeared in August 1977.

At sentencing, the trial judge concluded that the cow had been alive when she was dragged approximately 8 miles and died along the way, describing the incident as an act of extreme cruelty. Based in part on this finding, Bulger received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, while Mann and Arsenault each received sentences of two years less one day.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division, allowed the offenders’ sentence appeals and reduced all three sentences. The Court found that there was no evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the cow had been alive when dragged or that the accused had cruelly killed the animal. The accused had been convicted only of cattle theft, not animal cruelty, and the trial judge improperly relied on an unproven allegation of cruelty when imposing sentence. As a result, Bulger’s sentence was reduced from three years to two years’ imprisonment. Mann’s and Arsenault’s sentences were reduced from two years less one day to twelve months’ imprisonment each.

This case emphasizes that a sentencing judge cannot increase a sentence based on facts that were not proven at trial. The appeal court stressed that if the Crown wished to pursue allegations of animal cruelty, the accused should have been charged under the separate animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code, highlighting the distinction between the offence of cattle theft and the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

The Court also highlighted the importance of considering an offender’s criminal record at paragraphs 9-10 when determining sentence since Bulger received a harsher sentence than his co-accused due to his past criminal history. His past convictions involve theft, breaking and entering, or attempted theft.

R v Bulger

R. v. Adams, 2020 CarswellAlta 2755

Statute: Animal Protection Act (AB),
Section: s. 12(2) and s. 12(3) (animal ownership prohibition order)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Unknown,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Causing (unspecified) distress to his dog Gunther
Sentence: $7,500 fine, a $1,125 victim surcharge (total $8,625); three years of probation and a three-year animal prohibition order restricting his ownership of animals, with an exception for his dog Gunther
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Distress), Sentencing (Fines), Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Sentencing (Restitution orders),

Sean David Adams pleaded guilty under Alberta’s Animal Protection Act for causing distress to his two-year-old French bulldog, Gunther. The case proceeded directly to sentencing after Adams accepted responsibility for his actions, resulting in the cancellation of a scheduled two-day trial. Adams had no prior criminal record and Gunther had been living with a friend since the incident.

The Provincial Court of Alberta accepted a joint sentencing submission and imposed a fine of $7,500, plus a victim surcharge of $1,125, for a total penalty of $8,625. The court also ordered three years of probation and a three-year prohibition order restricting Adams from owning, possessing, or residing with animals, except for Gunther or another animal approved by police. Adams was also required to complete a pet care course and permit inspections of Gunther or any approved animal with reasonable notice by police. What is interesting is that the offender would be living in Ontario, and although the prohibition order was issued under Alberta legislation, the court ordered that he abide by it when in Ontario (paras. 18-20, 45, 56).

This case is importance because the court imposed a significant financial penalty despite Adams having no criminal record and pleading guilty. The decision also reflects a rehabilitative approach since it combines punishment with education and ongoing monitoring to promote responsible animal care.

R v Adams

R c JM, 2024 QCCQ 5715

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 264.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Uttering threats,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Threat to kill a dog (uttering threats)
Sentence: Global sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment, with credit for time served reducing the remaining custodial term to 21 months, followed by three years of probation.
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment),

The accused attended the victim’s residence, intoxicated, to remove his belongings after their relationship ended. He then violently assaulted the victim, confining her for several hours, destroying property after breaking into the residence, and threatening to kill the victim’s dog. Their 19-month-old child was present during this incident.

The accused was convicted of several offences, including assault causing bodily harm, assault with strangulation, sexual assault, forcible confinement, break and enter, mischief, and uttering threats, including threats to an animal. At sentencing, the court emphasized the seriousness of the violence, the abuse of trust in an intimate partner context, and the significant psychological harm to the victim. The court imposed a global sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, with credit for time served.

This case demonstrates that threats against animals can be treated as part of a broader pattern of coercive control and intimate partner violence, as in the violence link, and that courts may consider such threats when assessing an offender’s conduct and determining an appropriate sentence.

https://canlii.ca/t/k7d20
R. c. J.M 2024 QCCQ 5715

Côté c. R., 2023 QCCS 3239

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss. 235 and 182(b)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Fowl,
Type of Distress: Violent killing of sick poultry, including throwing animals against walls and filming the acts rather than following proper euthanasia protocols
Sentence: Court ordered that the accused remain in detention pending trial
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

The accused, Nicolas Côté, was charged with second-degree murder and indignity to a human body after killing and dismembering the victim. The case came before the Superior Court of Québec on an application for release pending trial (bail).

During the bail hearing, evidence was presented about the accused’ s past behaviour toward animals. Witnesses described how he worked at a poultry farm where he killed sick chicks and chickens, and that he sometimes did so in a violent manner, including throwing them against walls and filming the acts. The accused was also known to collect knives and had a strong interest in taxidermy.

The court denied bail and ordered the accused to remain detained. In reaching this decision, the judge considered several factors, including the extreme violence of the alleged crime, the strength of the evidence, and concerns about the accused’ s character and potential danger to the public. Evidence regarding the accused’ s treatment of animals was referenced as part of the broader assessment of his behaviour and state of mind.

The case demonstrates how evidence of violent behaviour toward animals may be used by courts to evaluate an accused’ s character, risk to the public, and dangerousness during bail proceedings, even when the accused is not charged with an animal-related offence.

 

https://canlii.ca/t/k7pgj
Côté c. R 2023 QCCS 3239

Butler v Whalen, 1984 Carswell Nfld 178

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 401(a) now known as s. 445(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Newfoundland and Labrador,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Willful shooting and killing of a dog who the appellant believed was threatening his animals
Sentence: Appeal allowed in part - conviction upheld but absolute discharge granted to appellant
Legal Issue: Common defenses (Colour of right), Common defenses (Legal excuse), Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

On January 25, 1982, the appellant willfully and without lawful excuse shot and killed the respondent’s dog while it was in the appellant’s yard. At trial, he was convicted under section 401(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada and fined $100, or, in default of payment within 30 days, to 30 days’ imprisonment. Section 401(a) makes it an offence to “wilfully and without lawful excuse” kill a dog “kept for a lawful purpose.”

The appellant appealed, arguing that:

  1. The respondent did not keep the dog for a lawful purpose;
  2. The respondent failed to tether the dog as required by the Dog Act, 1976, which permits anyone to destroy a dog found killing, maiming, or worrying humans or livestock; and
  3. He shot the dog believing it threatened his sheep.

The key legal question was whether the appellant’s belief constituted a lawful excuse. Section 386(2) of the Criminal Code provides that no one is guilty if they acted with “legal justification or excuse” and “colour of right.” Evidence showed that the dog was not barking and did not chase the sheep while in the appellant’s yard.

The appellate court held that while there are circumstances in which a dog may be lawfully killed if attacking domestic animals, the dog in this case was not doing so. Accordingly, the conviction under section 401(a) was upheld, but the appellant was granted an absolute discharge.

 

BUTLER v. WHALEN

R v Weseen, 2026 ABKB 415

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 445(1)(a), 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Neglect,
Animal: Rabbit,
Type of Distress: Killing and dismembering several rabbits, some of whom were kept as pets
Sentence: Global sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment, with 503 days’ credit for presentence custody; Lifetime animal prohibition order imposed under s. 447.1; DNA order and lifetime weapons prohibition
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Wilfulness,

These are the reasons for sentencing after a jury had found a 32-year-old first time offender guilty of 12 counts of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code. The court held a fact-finding endorsement hearing to determine whether it would accept as proven all essential facts to the jury’s guilty verdicts, and any other fact relevant to sentencing disclosed by the evidence at trial, details of which can be found here.

The Court reviewed the sentencing principles in the opening statements, relying on Parranto and Friesen to emphasize that a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness or degree of culpability of the offender, and that for animal cruelty offences, deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing principles. They went on to quote from Chen and Alcorn to highlight that animal abuse crimes are crimes of violence that are often not sentenced to reflect that gravity and confirmed that animals are no longer viewed as chattels (paras. 5 to 7).

Among the abuse detailed under circumstances of the offence starting at paragraph 9 include amputating one rabbit’s foot with pliers and no pain or sedative medication, castrating another rabbit (Loki) with an X-Acto knife for spraying him, who then developed an infection that resulted in the offender breaking Loki’s neck, and beating and throwing around another rabbit (Henry), resulting in the animal’s death. The beating was captured on video (paras. 13 to 15).

The pre-sentence report discussed the circumstances of the offender (paras. 23 to 29), which revealed a long history of disordered alcohol and substance use beginning in his early teen years, leaving school in Grade 11 and working a variety of low-skill jobs in periods ranging from three months to two years, attributing the duration to either contract work or difficulties getting along with management, but no physical or emotional abuse. He began using methamphetamines in his late 20s because it produced positive feelings and helped ease his depression and ADHD and attributed his poor decision-making and offences to this use.

A psychiatric pre-sentence report (“SAFPC Report”) was also prepared, in which the authoring doctor stated that the offender “should be diagnosed with Polysubstance (primary crystal methamphetamine) Use Disorder with Past Episode of Drug-induced Psychosis, which has subsided after he was arrested and deprived of illicit substances” and that he “meets diagnostic criteria for Unspecified Personality Disorder with prominent paranoid, narcissistic and borderline traits”, noting that the offences “occurred during the time when he became dependent on crystal methamphetamine and while daily using this substance, he had some psychotic symptomatology (voices which did not give him any directions but irritated him and fueled his anger)” (para. 27). The doctor also reported that the offender presented as a “self-focused individual diagnosed with unspecified personality disorder with prominent paranoid, narcissistic and borderline traits who has poor coping strategy, and appeared to be short-tempered” and that his “history and the results of his observation at SAFPC suggest that he is emotionally unstable and has low stress tolerance. According to the results of the psychological risk assessment, various post-release stressors such as housing/employment strain; volatile intimate disputes, or perceived betrayal/rejection can contribute to his relapses into substance use, feelings of rage and attitudes supportive of punishment of animals or individuals” with a low to moderate risk of re-offending, which would substantially increase if the offender were to experience any of the listed post-release stressors (paras. 28-29).

The Court reported receiving three Victim Impact Statements, including one from Brad Nichols, Calgary Humane Society’s Director of Enforcement, who wrote that the community is upset and horrified by intentional animal abuse and cruelty, and that that it “will rightfully take pause in rehoming pets privately on online marketplaces based on awareness of these crimes, unable to trust there is a loving home on the other end of that transaction,” and that “a community should be able to trust that companion animals are valued, cared for and live free of abuse” (para. 31). Other Statements submitted were from a Calgary Police Service detective who had worked on the case, who indicated that investigating this file left her shocked despite having attended previous scenes involving murders, traumatic deaths, and other violent incidents and from the offender’s former girlfriend who said that her experience with the offender and his actions has resulted in her being diagnosed with PTSD and feeling like she can no longer trust her judgment (paras. 32 to 33).

The Court agreed with the Crown that the extensive pain and suffering involved, the brutality of violence and use of weapons, failure to seek veterinary care and allowing the victims to suffer, and the breach of trust and defencelessness of the vulnerable animal victims were considered aggravating factors were aggravating factors, with which defence counsel agreed (paras. 37 to 38). Defence counsel submitted a variety of mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of criminal record and pointed to the pre-sentencing report regarding the offender’s substance use disorder, but the Court gave those factors limited weight in reducing his moral culpability. It also found that the offender’s apology letter and expressions of remorse were more self-serving in that the focus was more on the impact of the offences on the offender himself – the loss of his relationships, his reputation, and his prior sense of identity, as well as the hardships of being in custody – with comparatively little acknowledgment of the harm he caused the rabbits and others affected by his conduct (paras. 47 to 48).

The Crown submitted nine cases in support of their sentencing position (paras. 49 to 52), including Nichols, Raugust and Geick; while defence relied on Ehbrecht, Purvis, Huston and Zhu which the Court found to be limited in parity (paras. 53 to 58).

The Court ultimately imposed the following sentences (at para. 62 to 63)

  • On Counts 2 and 3, regarding Smokey – concurrent 24-month sentences.
  • On Counts 5 and 6, regarding Loki – concurrent 18-month sentences.
  • On Count 7, regarding Chloe – 12 months.
  • On Counts 10 and 11, regarding Henry – concurrent 54-month sentences.
  • On Counts 13, 14, and 15, regarding the unnamed multiple rabbits – concurrent 24-month sentences.

These sentences are concurrent within each victim-specific sentence block, which the Court then treated as consecutive so as to better reflect distinct victims and episodes of offending over time. The aggregate sentence was reduced to 96 months, or 8 years, after totality that reflected the overall gravity of the offences and the offender’s moral blameworthiness. After having served 335 days in pretrial custody, a rate of 1.5 to 1 gave the offender 503 days’ credit, leaving him with 79 months left to serve. The Court also imposed a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition as well as a lifetime animal prohibition order “in light of the gravity of these offences, the breach of trust involved, and the need to protect animals from future harm” (para. 63).

This is the longest animal cruelty sentence in Alberta court history; previously it was Raugust who had been sentenced six and a half years for torturing and killing multiple cats.

https://canlii.ca/t/kl7m4
R v Weseen 2026 ABKB 415

R v Weseen, 2026 ABKB 71

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss. 445(1)(a), 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Rabbit,
Type of Distress: Injuring and killing many rabbits, some of whom the offender had named
Sentence: Court found facts as proven for sentencing: the offender had wilfully caused unnecessary pain, suffering, and injury to multiple rabbits and failed to provide suitable and adequate care
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Procedure,

This is a fact-finding endorsement from the court to determine whether it would accept as proven all essential facts to the jury’s guilty verdicts, and any other fact relevant to sentencing disclosed by the evidence at trial: Criminal Code, s 724(2). The offender had been charged with 15 counts of offences committed against rabbits (Smokey, Loki, Chloe, and Henry) as well as multiple unnamed rabbits, by killing or injuring them and causing them unnecessary pain, injury or suffering. On June 28, 2025, a jury had found the offender guilty of 12 counts; the Crown had previously withdrawn three counts.

Some of the acts of violence committed toward the rabbits include: severing of limbs and castration without sedation or veterinary care/oversight, improper handling causing one rabbit’s skin to separate from the muscle in her neck and beating and throwing another rabbit around while holding their back legs.

The court accepted the testimony of forensic veterinarian Dr. Margaret Doyle, who had examined several of the rabbit victims and found that the injuries were made intentionally by the offender. It decided against listing all of the injuries caused to the multiple rabbits – well over a dozen unnamed in addition to the four named rabbits – due to their graphic nature (para. 6, 1-24).

Defence counsel invited the court to make other findings “based on what the offender told the police officer regarding his mental health issues, personal circumstances, including financial circumstances and substance abuse, and voices he says he heard in his head at the time of the offences” (para. 8), but the court declined to accept those as fact and instead wait for the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre Psychiatric/Psychological Risk Assessment and Pre-sentence Report.

https://canlii.ca/t/khz28
R v Weseen 2026 ABKB 71

R v Kabecz and Lima, 2026 MBKB: Reasons for sentence

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Bird, Cat, Exotic, Fish, Rabbit, Rodent,
Type of Distress: Torture and killing of more than 90 animals, recorded and distributed for commercial gain
Sentence: 12 years' imprisonment (less time-served); a lifetime prohibition against having care or control over any animals, and DNA orders for each offender
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

This summary is from the sentencing decision made in the Winnipeg animal crush case, where the male and female offenders both pled guilty with a recommended sentence of 12 years of imprisonment submitted jointly by Crown and defence counsel. The sentencing submissions can be found here, and the plea matter is here.

The Court opens proceedings with a harsh rebuke for the offenders: “The depravity is stunning. In over 40 years as a lawyer, and as a judge, I have not seen any facts come close to this. Absolutely stunning. You tortured and killed 90 animals for your own twisted gratification. I cannot begin to conceive the suffering of each of those defenceless animals as you tortured them to death for your own deviant sexual pleasure and profit” (p. T1).

This was followed by a quote from the Winnipeg Humane Society’s Community Impact Statement, where the Court noted that animals are vulnerable, “in particular cats because they do not have their own voices and so many are feral with no one looking out for them”. It then refers to the anxiety and distress the animals would have experienced from the torture inflicted on them and “in some cases from having to watch as other animals were tortured and killed in front of them”, and how death was not instantaneous for these animals who would have felt terror as their suffering was prolonged” (p. T1).

Drawing from the evidence that had been presented, the Court remarked on the other plans made by the offenders for their enterprise, citing communications where they discussed plans “to obtain a pregnant dog and kill each puppy on video at the moment of its birth; finding a homeless man and a dog to kill; and fantasize about getting a human baby so you could torture it for your sexual pleasure and profit”, indicating that they were fortunate that their enterprise had been interrupted before it could escalate.

The Court deemed the moral blameworthiness of both offenders to be at the highest level and showed surprise that, prior to this, the couple had led “unremarkable” lives: they had gone to school, had jobs and came from good and loving families (p. T2). Despite this, the Court seemed somewhat encouraged by the behaviour of the offenders while in custody awaiting trial, that they appeared to be taking responsibility for their conduct, participating in available programming and productively working with the staff at their facilities, with no reports of any issues.

The offenders were sentenced to 12 years (minus time served) as set out by the Crown and their counsel, with the breakdown as follows:

  • Counts 2 and 3: Five years on each count concurrent to each other;
  • Counts 4 and 5: Five years for each, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentences on the previous two counts; and
  • On counts 1 and 6: Two years on each, concurrent but consecutive to counts 4 and 5.

They were also sentenced to lifetime prohibitions against owning, care or control of any animals: “You can’t even be in a house where animals are, and that includes birds” (p. T3), as well as ordered to provide DNA samples.

This case sets a new benchmark in animal cruelty sentencing, having the distinction of almost doubling the previous Canadian jail sentencing record of 6.5 years for animal cruelty charges given to “a psychopath and a sociopath with bleak prospects for rehabilitation and an overall moderate to high risk to reoffend” who had pleaded guilty to nine animal cruelty charges for the torture of nine cats and killing of seven.

Reasons for sentence - Kabecz and Lima - 26FEB11

R v Kabecz and Lima, 2026 MBKB: Sentencing submissions

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Other,
Animal: Cat, Exotic, Fish, Other, Rabbit, Rodent,
Type of Distress: Torture and killing of more than 90 animals, recorded and distributed for commercial gain
Sentence: Joint recommendation for both offenders: 12 years' imprisonment, lifetime prohibition against having care or control over any animals, and DNA orders
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Unnecessary,

This is the transcript for the sentencing submissions for the Winnipeg couple who had pled guilty on six counts of causing animal suffering in a highly publicized case involving animal crush videos created and sold through a Telegram messaging group. Details from the plea submission are here.

The Crown reviewed some concerns highlighted in the presentencing reports (PSR) for each offender and suggested that they should be taken with “a large helping of salt” (p. T13). For the male offender, the Crown noted inconsistencies where on “page 4 he says he was turned off and didn’t feel anything, didn’t feel anything positive from his behaviour, but then we have text conversations with Ms. Lima which suggests the opposite”; and “at page 17 he says he had no motivation to harm animals, but then we see the contrary again in the texts, and the PSR concludes saying that he lacks empathy with the animals and fails to appreciate the severity of his actions, and also makes a point of saying he has a history of controlling manipulating intimidating behaviour” (p. T13).

In the female offender’s PSR, the Crown again noted discrepancies between what was reported there and what the evidence indicated, with concerns that she did not appear to take full responsibility on one of her previous fraud convictions. where she had been convicted twice of defrauding elderly patients when she worked as a home healthcare aide. The PSR went on to highlight that “on page 4 she denies knowing anything about the commercial aspect of this whole enterprise” and “she says she feels bad, and then that she was coerced by her co-accused to do this, but then we have her diary which seems to indicate something else, and her comments in the text messages wanting some birds, wanting to crush things, and how she’ll never stop” (p. T14). The Court found the PSRs for both accused to be self-serving.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas but were outweighed by the aggravating factors of the female offender’s previous criminal history, the prolonged suffering and brutality involved in the torture, and abuse of a position of trust toward animals, all of which increase moral blameworthiness. The Crown also highlighted the planning and effort involved in obtaining the animals, and the amount of organization put into the website where the rules and regulations for membership asked potential members to submit new original videos and photos of similar acts of cruelty, which “just perpetuates and promotes further violence against animals” (p. T15). The commercialization and monetization of the animal torture, where a 15-minute video would cost $150 and the price list with its many double or triple digit figures indicates that the torture and suffering were lengthy until the animal’s death, was also referred to as aggravating. Other evidence read into the record was a Facebook message exchange from April 2024, where the offenders imagined finding and crushing a child, and saying how no one would ever find it.

The Crown submitted case law focusing on denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives in animal abuse cases, including Geick, Chen, Friesen, and Nichols.

The Court also heard a Community Impact Statement (CIS), submitted by Winnipeg Humane Society with support from Humane Canada, outlining the broader harm caused by this case.

The CIS described the animals as having endured extreme psychological and physical suffering, including prolonged distress, fear, and attempts to escape. In some instances, animals were forced to witness the abuse and death of others before suffering the same fate. Going beyond the animal victims, the statement detailed the significant and measurable effect on the broader public. The case generated widespread outrage and led to the formation of Project Artemis Advocates (PAW), a grassroots organization that quickly grew to more than 2,000 members. Community members organized 18 vigils and rallies, even in extreme winter conditions, demonstrating the depth of public engagement and distress. As one section from the CIS made by the founder of PAW cited in court emphasized, the case has helped shift public perception away from the idea that animal harm is trivial, that it’s “just an animal”, to underscore that animal protection is a shared community value.

The CIS concluded that the abuse had lasting psychological, physical, and social effects on both animals and the human community, an assessment that aligned closely with the Crown’s submission on aggravating factors.

A joint sentencing recommendation of 12 years’ imprisonment, lifetime prohibition on owning or possessing animals under s. 447.1(1), and DNA orders for each offender was submitted for the Court’s consideration. Both Crown and defence counsel acknowledged that this case would likely be precedent-setting. The scale, organization, and commercialization of the offences distinguish it from prior animal cruelty cases.

 

Sentencing submissions incl CIS Kabecz and Lima - 26FEB11

R v Kabecz and Lima, 2025 MBKB: Plea submission

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Other,
Animal: Bird, Cat, Exotic, Fish, Other, Rabbit, Rodent,
Type of Distress: Torture and killing of more than 90 animals, recorded and distributed for commercial gain
Sentence: n/a
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Suffering, Unnecessary,

This is a plea submission from November 14, 2025 involving a male and female couple from Winnipeg who were charged with animal cruelty in one of the most horrific animal abuse cases in Canadian court history. Both accused pleaded guilty to six counts of willfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering to numerous animals over several months in 2024.

The case came to the attention of the authorities in August 2024 when an anonymous tipster contacted Manitoba’s Animal Care tipline about an online group they had located called Goddess May Premium Barefoot Crush that was selling and sharing videos of animals being crushed to death, distributed on the messaging app, Telegram, which had over 100 members. Screenshots and videos provided to Winnipeg police showed evidence of this, including a video of a bare human foot crushing live cats to death. There were also topless images of the male accused including his tattoos and his face, as well as a price list offering various animals being killed: a baby mouse for $5 or three kitten family for $180 (p. T4). Many of the videos had sexual components to them; “in one video, the female accused crushes a cat to death under her bare foot while she made loud sexual noises and purported to masturbate and orgasm as the cat dies” (p. T5).

Police linked the accused to the group and found evidence showing they filmed and sold videos of over 90 animals being tortured and killed including 67 cats, six rabbits, seven birds, six hamsters, two rats, an axolotl, a frog, and three goldfish. This activity generated about $2,800 CAD in profit.

The court accepted the guilty pleas and a pre-sentence report was ordered, with sentencing postponed to a later date.

Guilty plea - Kabecz and Lima 2025 MBKB