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 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. Grant, 2025 ONSC 4991

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.01 (1), 109
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Shooting and killing police service dog, Bingo, while attempting to evade arrest in domestic dispute
Sentence: Four consecutive years imprisonment for killing bingo of 14 years’ imprisonment sentence before credit for presentence custody
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges), Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Unnecessary,

This is the sentencing case of an offender who shot and killed a police service dog, Bingo, in the context of escaping capture for killing someone involved in a domestic dispute with his daughter. It is significant for the sentence that was levied on the charge for killing Bingo at four years imprisonment and the Victim Impact Statements that lament the loss of Bingo which indicate that in addition to being a service animal, Bingo was also a treasured family member.

On July 24, 2023, Kenneth Grant attended his daughter’s apartment armed with a loaded firearm after learning that her former partner, Sophonias Haile, was refusing to leave. During the confrontation, Grant fired four shots at Mr. Haile, killing him. The following day, when police came to arrest him, Grant fired at Detective Constable Goulah and later at Sergeant Smith. During this encounter, Mr. Grant deliberately shot and killed Bingo, who was assisting the officers in locating him. Grant fled the scene but was apprehended later that day.

Grant pleaded guilty to manslaughter, discharging a firearm with intent to prevent arrest, reckless discharge of a firearm, killing a service animal, and possession of a loaded firearm. Sgt. Smith submitted a Victim Impact Statement to the Court that stated “My family is without Bingo”, and his wife submitted a Statement on behalf of the Smith family that indicated how “the family has not just faced the loss of Bingo but as the Victim Impact Statement sets out: “we not only grieve the violence that took place that day, but we also continue to mourn our profound and personal reality: the brutal and senseless loss of Bingo, as well as the very real fact that my husband almost didn’t make it home to our family that night.””(para. 16-17)

The Court accepted a joint submission by counsel and imposed a global sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. The Court applied the principle of proportionality to ensure each sentence reflected the seriousness of the individual offences and the principle of totality to ensure the overall sentence was not unduly long or harsh. Individual sentences included 10 years for manslaughter, nine years concurrently for the firearms offences, and four years consecutively for the killing of Bingo. The court found that the killing of a service animal was an aggravating factor and emphasized that the offence represented a deliberate and callous killing (para. 41, 53).

After credit for 771 days of pre-sentence custody (calculated at 1.5:1), the remaining sentence was 10 years and 10 months. The Court also imposed a section 109 weapons prohibition for ten years, a DNA order and a forfeiture order

https://canlii.ca/t/kf8n9
R v Grant 2025 ONSC 4991

Josan v R, 2025 SKKB 108

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Saskatchewan,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Beating a dog, caught on video; threatening statements made to person recording incident
Sentence: Appeal dismissed; suspended sentence of 12 months with probation conditions, 30 hours of community service, restitution of $1,994 to the Regina Humane Society, a $100 victim surcharge, and a two-year prohibition on possessing animals upheld
Legal Issue: Procedure (Error in principle),

In November 2024, the appellant/offender had pled guilty to wilfully causing unnecessary pain to a dog by hitting it contrary to s 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in an incident that had been captured on video. He was issued a suspended sentence of 12 months with probation conditions, 30 hours of community service, restitution of $1,994 to the Regina Humane Society, a $100 victim surcharge, and a two-year prohibition on possessing animals.

The offender appealed in June 2025, arguing the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to comply with section 726 of the Criminal Code by not asking the offender if he had anything to say before sentencing (para.13-14). The respondent/Crown submitted that the sentence was reasonable and proportionate to the offence, given its seriousness and the need for deterrence and denunciation and acknowledged the procedural error under section 726 but argued it did not affect the sentence.

The judge undertakes a thorough review of the history of animal case law across Canada, referring to the Criminal Code amendments in 2008 and 2019, and quoting at length from cases such as Justice Fraser’s dissent in Reece v Edmonton, Alcorn, Chen and the recent Nichols case from Manitoba to demonstrate the seriousness of animal cruelty offences and the evolving consideration animals have in society. The judge also stated that

“Sentencing judges must consider both the harm done to the animal and to society’s revulsion against and condemnation of animal cruelty. The focus of the inquiry must begin with the gravity of the offence – the nature and extent of the pain, suffering, and injury caused to the animal as the victim of the offence. Courts have compared offences against domestic animals with offences against children, since both are vulnerable and rely upon people as their guardians for their care and protection” (para. 73)

They reiterated that “most convictions result in a prison sentence, suspended sentence with probation, or conditional sentence order. Incarceration is appropriate for serious cases of intentional harm, including for first time offenders” (para. 74) and that “aggravating factors include harming animals in the offender’s care, since this is a breach of trust, and harming pets of others to exert control or as retribution” (para. 75).

The appeal was dismissed after the judge concluded that the sentence was not excessive, but appropriate given the circumstances, and that the error made by the sentencing judge relating to s 726 was not a miscarriage in justice but a harmless oversight, as the offender’s counsel had effectively communicated the offender’s remorse and personal circumstances to the Court.

https://canlii.ca/t/kdlfj
Josan v R 2025 SKKB 108

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 Raugust, [2023] A.J. No. 1196

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: 445(1)(a), 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Cat,
Type of Distress: Strangling, beating, kicking and stomping cats to death or near death because "made her feel good" to feel the animal suffer (para. 229)
Sentence: Six and a half years imprisonment; lifetime animal prohibition order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Wilfulness,

Diagnosed as a psychopathic serial cat killer, 26-year-old Aleeta Raugust admitted to purchasing cats through Kijiji just to kill them between 2018 and 2023. The first incident occurred between January 1st of 2018 and December 31st of 2018 when she had broken up with her boyfriend; Raugust strangled a cat (that survived) and then abandoned the animal in the park. The actual killings did not begin until October 2022; prior to that, Raugust would maim and torture the cats (para. 465). She made recordings of the killings and watched them repeatedly because of the pleasure it gave her, as did leaving the bodies of the cats in places such as a neighbour’s picnic table and in a cat food bag on another neighbour’s porch so she could observe the reactions of those who found them. She told police during initial questioning in January 2023 that “I have a problem with hurting animals, and you need to do something about it” (para.853). Raugust pleaded guilty to nine animal cruelty charges for the torture of nine cats and killing of seven.

In addition to the animal cruelty charges, Raugust also pleaded guilty to a charge of threatening to damage property for telling police (after being admitted to hospital) that she planned to burn down her apartment building once she was released. She also admitted to fantasizing about hurting people when she would get angry.

Sentencing was initially delayed due to the call for further mental health testing and a risk assessment in August, where she was deemed a “psychopath and sociopath with bleak hope for rehabilitation” with a strong threat to reoffend. Her own mother submitted a victim impact statement on behalf of the Crown asking the court to detain her daughter, saying “I fear that if she is released she will commit more horrific crimes” (para. 55).  Among many other factors, the judge also accepted as aggravating that one cat was pregnant and killed within days after she was arrested and charged for other instances of animal cruelty (para. 277) as well as the acceptance of Lockwood’s Checklist for Factors in the Assessment of Dangerousness and Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty. Consecutive sentences were deemed appropriate.

She was sentenced to 78 months or six and a half years imprisonment, more than double the previous sentencing threshold of three years in R v Geick, and a lifetime animal prohibition order. The judge initially calculated a total of 12 years and one month based on the jail time given for each count, but after taking into account the totality and that Raugust is a youthful offender, the sentence was reduced to 78 months.

R. v. Raugust

R v Picco, 2023 NLCA 33

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1), (3); 446(1)
Province or Territory: Newfoundland and Labrador,
Offence: Abuse, Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Four beagles found emaciated and near death without adequate food, water or shelter
Sentence: Leave to appeal allowed; matter remitted for new trial at provincial court
Legal Issue: Abandoning in distress, Suffering, Suitable care, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

This is the decision on a Crown leave to appeal to the Newfoundland Court of Appeal relating to the 2022 case where the accused, Robert Picco, was acquitted both at trial and summary conviction appeal court of wilfully causing unnecessary suffering and neglect of four beagles in his care under Criminal Code sections 445.1(1), (3) and 446(1). The summary conviction appeal decision can be found here.

The trial judge had not only concluded that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the necessary mens rea of the criminal offences, but also that the four beagles were suffering, despite accepting evidence that the dogs were found starving and near death; the appeal judge upheld the trial judge’s decision. The Crown’s position centered around whether the summary conviction appeal judge had correctly upheld the trail judge’s acquittal. The Court noted that the appeal raised questions of law with significance for the administration of justice and would also provide the opportunity to consider the interpretation of these Criminal Code offences and clarify some of their elements.

The Court found that the trial judge – and subsequently the appeal judge in upholding the original acquittal – had made several errors in their respective decisions by applying the wrong legal principles in determining the actus reus and mens rea of the offences (para. 6-7). Regarding the alleged failure of the Crown to prove that the dogs were suffering as a necessary element to s 445.1(1)(a), the Court determined that the legal test as set out in Menard was not properly applied by either judge, stating “With respect, to have accepted that the animals were “extremely” emaciated, starving, in deplorable or grave condition and near death, but not “suffering” is wrong in reason, logic and in law” (para.19).

The trial judge also erred in the reasons for determining reasonable doubt that Picco possessed the necessary mens rea for the offence under section 445.1(1)(a), with the Court stating that reasonable doubt on the section 446(1)(b) offence did not explain why there was a reasonable doubt on the section 445.1(1)(a) offence as they were different offences in need of separate analysis. Also, the trial judge failed to properly apply the test for recklessness in the section 446(1)(b) offence to the evidence she accepted, and the Court also found that the trial judge’s acceptance of both the accused’s testimony and that the actus reus of the offence had been established were contradictory. The appeal judge made further errors by affirming or refusing to interfere with the findings made by the trial judge.

The Court was satisfied that the errors made had significant bearing on the acquittals in this case and allowed the Crown’s appeal, ordering that the matter be sent back to provincial court for a new trial.

Of interest, although not raised in the appeal by either party, the Court made reference to the trial judge’s approach to the actus reus and interpretation of the word “and” in section 446(1) by comparing it to section 429(2). It stated that, in a similar manner that it would not be sensible to require that an accused prove that they acted with legal justification or excuse and colour of right as it was worded prior to amendments made in 2018 changing the word to or, it would also not make sense to treat the word “and” as conjunctive in the “food, water, shelter, and care” provision of the 446(1)(b) offence because it would defeat the purpose of it (para. 68-70).

The Court relied on paragraph 39 in Chen to further illustrate this point and concluded that “as animals under the care of humans have no control over whether they have adequate food or water or shelter or care, it follows that failing to provide any one of the four listed needs would constitute a failure in a person’s duty to adequately and suitably provide for the animal” (para. 71-72).

https://canlii.ca/t/k0vks
R v Picco 2023 NCLA 33 - Crown appeal

R v CW, [2022] MJ No. 222

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: 160(1), 160(4)
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Bestiality,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Sexual abuse of seven different dogs over a 10-year period, digitally recorded along with child sexual abuse material
Sentence: 4 years incarceration in total for each co-accused with 1 year concurrent on the charge of Bestiality; Five year prohibition order (three year plus incarceration) against possessing any dogs, ten year social media platform ban, DNA order and lifetime SOIRA order.
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

This case deals with sexual abuse material produced that involved two minors and seven dogs over a ten year period, according to time-stamped videos kept by the accused husband and wife. The co-accused pled guilty to all charges.

The Crown and defence counsel agreed on a joint sentencing submission, which included 4 years imprisonment with the following breakdown: 2.5 years plus 1.5 years consecutive for the making of child pornography in relation to victim 1 and 2 respectively, and one year to be served concurrently for the bestiality charge per offender. There were also ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA in accordance with the Criminal Code, DNA and animal prohibition order and social media restrictions.

This case is significant in that it is the first time in known Canadian court history that a Community Impact Statement was accepted on behalf of an animal. The Criminal Justice System Reform Program team at Humane Canada worked with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc. to craft a statement that would speak not only for the animal sexual abuse victims in this case, but for all animals who are at risk of sexual abuse. Although the defence had concerns regarding some of its contents reading more like a legal brief, they did not object to the statement due to the joint sentencing arrangement. It was submitted as an exhibit in sentencing and forms part of the official court record.

The Crown relied on the Humane Canada statement to help inform his approach in seeking a lifetime animal prohibition order under section 160(4)of the Criminal Code in sentencing submissions, who was concerned that the defence was asking for a shorter prohibition order with respect to an offence that is extremely difficult to detect: “Typically if people own animals, they own them in the privacy of their home or on a property that they owned that is far from prying eyes. Animals have no capacity whatsoever to report offending behaviour against them. They simply lack that capacity in any meaningful way.” (p.14)

He went on to state that the only reason the animal sexual abuse was detected was because the accused had made digital recordings to watch later, which on their own would not guarantee detection; it was because the accused offended against two minors who reported the incidents to the RCMP, who then conducted an investigation during which they found the recordings featuring the animal sexual abuse. If any of those steps had been missed, the Crown asserted, the sexual abuse against these animals would not have been discovered. He concluded his submission on the animal prohibition order by stating:

“And I say to the Court that where the accused had demonstrated that they’ve engaged in a prolonged pattern of behaviour, of sexual activity involving animals, which we  have to be clear is criminal in nature, the only way to protect animals going forward; the only way to protect animals going forward is by prohibiting these individuals from possessing them. There’s no other mechanism the Court can impose that would keep animals safe.

And if these individuals were allowed to have animals in their care, I submit to the Court that there would always be a risk that those animals may be abused for the sexual gratification of either of the accused. So the Court is being asked, on behalf of the Crown, for a lifetime ban under Section 160(4)” (p. 14).

There was then some discussion between the judge and the Crown about species-specific language for the prohibition order, where it was established that certain animals such as dogs and some cats are at more risk for animal sexual abuse than some birds and goldfish.

The judge accepted the joint submission on sentencing for the most part, apart from two areas where there were disagreements among counsel: the lifetime animal prohibition order and the social media ban. Due to pre-sentencing reports that indicated that both offenders were at very low to below average risks to offend, as well as the mitigating factors of the guilty pleas, ages of the offenders, lack of criminal records and no further offences or any violations of release conditions, the judge determined that this was an unusual case therefore a five-year prohibition on the possession of any dogs from the time of sentencing would be appropriate. The social media ban does not restrict the use of email communication, which the judge recognized as the modern version of Canada Post but would apply to social media platforms such as Facebook or TikTok for a period of ten years.

 

R v Geick 2022 ABQB – Sentencing Decision

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445(1)(a); 447.1
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Beating and killing of common law's partners two dogs
Sentence: Three years imprisonment; lifetime animal prohibition order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Wilfulness,

The accused was convicted of two counts of killing two dogs belonging to his former common law partner, Joanna Smith, contrary to s 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, after the Court determined that he had deliberately beaten Sophie and Tyler, causing them serious injury and ultimately death. The accused claimed to have no memory of being responsible for killing the dogs.

Necropsies on both dogs showed that they had died from severe trauma, with multiple blunt force injuries. The accused used so much force in pulling on Sophie’s ear that it almost detached from her skull; the forensic veterinarian described in testimony that her liver was “pulverized” and she died from those internal injuries likely in a great deal of pain. He used enough force to Tyler’s mouth and both ears, choking him hard enough to cause the bilateral scleral hemorrhage. He then kicked him in the abdomen, bruising Tyler’s lungs and causing the internal bleeding that ended in the decision to euthanize him.

The Crown sought sentencing in the range of three and a half to four years imprisonment, with a lifetime animal prohibition order. The position followed the principles reflected in R v Friesen, which give direction on imposing sentences that are fully reflective of the deep wrongfulness and harm caused in sexual offences against children, as those principles equally apply to animal cruelty offences.

The defence requested a six month sentence to be served at his home and believed a three year animal prohibition order would be sufficient.

Both parties were asked to provide submissions regarding the Alberta Court of Appeal’s recent decision in R v Chen. The sentencing judge considered those factors identified in Chen, specifically the animal’s pain and suffering during and after the event, that sentences for animal cruelty offences as crimes of violence often fail to reflect the seriousness of the crime, and that animals are uniquely vulnerable victims and not chattels.

The evidence established that both Tyler and Sophie suffered pain during and after the time their physical injuries were sustained, and that “animals are capable of displaying signs of discomfort and pain as sentient beings and domestic pets are particularly vulnerable as they are heavily dependent on people for their well being” (pp 16-17). The judge concluded “that a fit and proper sentence is 30 months incarceration relative to Sophie and 18 months incarceration relative to Tyler to be served on a consecutive basis” and “are reflective of [the accused]’s moral blameworthiness and are consistent with the notion that the wilful infliction of unnecessary pain on animals or family pets is considered repugnant in today’s society” (page 26).

In regard to the principles of totality and proportionality, the direction was that the accused serve 36 months incarceration, the longest carceral sentence in an animal cruelty case to date, with a lifetime prohibition order under Criminal Code section 447.1. It is interesting to note that this was the first time that the court clerk had heard of that particular section.

 

 

GEICK Feb 18, 2022