R v Keefer, Vandyk & Visser, 2017 BCPC 142

The BC SPCA was alerted to an undercover investigation performed by Mercy for Animals (MFA). One of their employees posed as a worker at Chilliwack Cattle Sales and filmed his experience there. The video depicted numerous acts of violence towards animals, including beating, kicking, stomping and hitting cows.

After a lengthy investigation the BC SPCA recommended 20 charges to crown for Chilliwack Cattle Sales and its employees. The company and all employees have pled guilty.

Keefer, Vandyk and Visser pleaded guilty to section 24(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and to section 34(a) of the Wildlife Act.

This case is precedent setting as all individuals charged received jail time for offences against farm animals.

R v Paulsen, 2015 BCPC 45

Emma Paulsen owned a dog walking business for 7 years. On May 13th, 2014 Paulsen reported to the RCMP that six dogs had been stolen out of the back of her pickup truck while she was in the washroom at a dog park in Langley. An intensive search and investigation was conducted and resources were used from the RCMP, Animal Control and Pet Searchers Canada, including members of the public. It was not until May 19th, 2014 that Paulsen confessed to Pet Searchers Canada that the dogs had perished in the back of her truck while she was shopping and she had transported the bodies to Chilliwack and left them in a ditch. With this new information, the BC SPCA began an investigation into Paulsen and found that all 6 dogs had perished as a result of heat stroke, one of which belonged to Paulsen.

Although this case was deemed accidental, Paulsen pleaded guilty.

This case is significant as it is one of the few cases in which the accused is convicted of, and receives a strong sentence for, leaving an animal in a hot vehicle. It was also the charge under the (relatively) new section 9.1(1) which creates a positive duty on the part of an owner to protect an animal from a situation that is likely to cause an animal to be in distress (eg. leaving a dog in a car on a hot day).

Mitigating factors include: Paulsen did not intend to harm the dogs; Paulsen’s mental state at the time in question; Paulsen is a first-time offender.

Aggravating factors include: Paulsen’s behaviour was more than mere negligence; Paulsen’s six days of deception toward law enforcement, the media, the BCSPCA, and the owners of the deceased dogs; Paulsen did not apologize or express remorse and tried to cover up her wrongdoing.

R v Labonte, 2014 ABPC 153

Sentencing following a guilty plea. Accused was a 19-year-old employee of a dog daycare. He brutally beat a 5-month-old boxer named Apollo until he vomited blood. The dog had no lasting or permanent injuries. The event was caught on CCTV.

Given the severity of the offence and position of trust, accused sentenced to 60 days conditional sentence. An animal prohibition (except from the accused’s current cat) was decied but not included in these reasons.

R v Gerling, 2013 BCSC 2503

Decision following 14-day trial. Gerling operated a chihuahua kennel. The dogs under his care were poorly groomed, inadequately cared for, and required serious eye and dental treatment. BCSPCA attended the kennel multiple times, citing infractions and making orders to remedy issues. Events took place between March 200 and February 2011.

Accused claimed Charter breaches of s. 7 and s. 8 for over-seizure of the animals, but these arguments were not accepted.

Judge cited R v Clarke (2001 NLPC) and R v Hughes (2008 BCPC) to conclude that the Crown does not have to prove subjective foreseeability of unnecessary pain or suffering, but that the length of suffering and repeated BCSPCA orders meant that the accused was wilful and caused the actus reus.

Accused found guilty.

R v Pacific Meat Co, 1957 BCSC, 119 CCC 237

Leading case on the Crown’s burden of establishing ‘unnecessary’ suffering.

PMC operates a slaughter house for hogs. During the slaughtering process, hogs are shackled, dangled in the air as they are hoisted, and struck against a metal wall. Then, a person designated as a sticker cuts the hogs’ throats with a knife. It was alleged that this process causes hogs unnecessary harm and suffering.

R v Marohn, 2012 BCPC 198; 199

In December 2008 a police officer responded to a report of a vehicle in a ditch. Dr. Marohn was at the scene with a horse, which he was using to attempt to pull the car from the ditch. The horse had collapsed and could not be raised to its feet. A veterinarian had to euthanize the horse. Necropsy revealed the horse was emaciated due to lack of food.

Dr. Marohn had financial problems due to an injury which made him incapable to work. He still collected horses on his property, despite knowing the financial burden.

Trial judge does not accept the accused’s evidence of the event, and states that he is “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was using Buddy [the horse] to attempt to free the vehicle from the ditch,” despite knowing the horse was emaciated.

Although being in financial trouble, Dr. Marohn declined an offer from the SPCA to take four of his horses. He made some efforts to find alternative locations for the horses, which were not commensurate with the seriousness of the situation. The judge states, “it is clear that the accused’s heart and good intentions interfered with his good judgment… It interfered with him using due diligence in finding alternative solutions.”

The Crown has proven the elements as required in s. 24(1). With respect to s.446(1)(b), the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a marked departure from the reasonable care in these circumstances.

Dr. Marohn was found guilty of both counts.

Sentencing:

A large degree of the accused’s poor judgement in dealing with the issues related to the horse are related to his medical issues. He is unable to work, which put his family in dire financial distress. Dr. Marohn (a veterinarian) lost his practice and had to rely on friends for the housing of his daughters. According to the judge, “it is clear that if he had the financial means he would have properly cared for his horse,” and “the accused expressed genuine remorse” for his actions.

Denunciation and deterrence has already occurred by virtue of the public arrest, the conviction, the accused’s pre-trial release, conditions on release, and the extensive media coverage.

Dr. Marohn was sentenced to 24 months probation for each count, to run concurrently, as well as a 3 year prohibition order.

R v Tremblay, 2012 BCPC 410

Defendant hit the dog, “King”, with his open hand and with a dish as well as striking the dog , including blows with the hammer to its head and body. Tremblay sprayed a substance into the dog’s face and appeared to rub the substance into the dog’s eyes. The judgment seems to suggest if Crown had proceeded by way of indictment, might have imposed a longer jail term although not criticizing Crown’s decision to proceed by summary conviction. Might have been longer than 6 months except 1) Crown asked for 6 months; 2) Comparison to similar cases (Connors and Munroe)

Sentence: (1) 6 months imprisonment; (2) 30 month probation; (3) $5233.37 restitution to owner; (4) 25 year animal prohibition

R v McConkey, 2008 ABPC 37

McConkey’s dogs were severely matted, had irritated skin and dental problems, as well as other health issues. She failed to arrange proper treatment for their afflictions.

R v Carter, 2006 ABPC 341

Carter’s farm was variously described as a ‘disaster’ and a ‘hazard zone.’ Her animals were severely neglected. There was debris, junk, and faeces scattered all across her barn. There were corpses of a dog, a chicken, and four rabbits. Some of the stalls contained faeces up to a metre high. Her foals were caked in faeces, flakes, and scales. One of them had died and was left to rot in a tiny stall. Her horses were deprived of adequate food, shelter, and water.

Found guilty: no sentence indicated in case. However, “she was fined $1000 and ordered to reduce the number of livestock to no more than 10 animals for a five-year period; she also must keep the Alberta SPCA informed of the animals under her care” [http://www.albertaspca.org/resources/publications/AnimalKind_27-1_Spring2007.pdf, at 4]

R v Irving, 2013 SKPC 101

Accused alleged to have been operating a puppy mill. Animal protection officers seized 82 dogs being housed in a muddy yard without adequate food, shelter, or care. Failed to meet generally accepted practices for dog kennel.

Charged but found not guilty of two counts under the Criminal Code.

Found guilty of one count of causing animals to be in distress contrary to section 4 of the Animal Protection Act.