Kennedy v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 15872 93

Statute: PAWS Act (ON), Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act,
Section: s 38
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Appellant wanted dog Junior returned after he had been physically and emotionally abused, via beating (kicked in the head and body) and screaming.
Sentence: Appeal for return of Junior dismissed
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Distress), Maim/Wound/Injure, Ownership/Care/Control, Suffering, Suitable care,

Appellant Mark Kennedy contested the removal of his bulldog, Junior, by Provincial Animal Welfare Services (PAWS) investigators after a neighbour complained that the appellant had physically and emotionally abused Junior. A Senior Investigator for PAWS reviewed video showing the appellant yelling at, striking, pushing and kicking the dog. An AWS veterinarian, Dr. Robertson, reviewed the video, concluded the conduct was abusive and signed a veterinary certificate advising removal.

At issue was whether Junior was in distress on May 2, 2024 and whether removal was necessary to relieve that distress; and also whether the conditions leading to removal had been addressed so that Junior could be safely returned to the appellant.

Animal Care Review Board accepted the evidence of the investigator and the veterinarian, and found that Junior was in distress from physical and psychological abuse on the date in question and that his removal was necessary and lawful. In his testimony, the veterinarian stated that “when caregivers are physical abusers, there is inherently an element of psychological distress as compared to a single act of physical abuse by a random stranger whom the dog does not know; Dogs are dependent on their owners for the basic needs of life and physical abuse at the hands of an owner who they need to continue to interact with, causes psychological distress; Dogs who have been abused by their owners are conflicted by their need to be taken care of and their reluctance to interact with their abuser.” (para. 20 (h-j)).

The Board found the conditions causing removal had not been addressed and determined that the appellant’s expressions of remorse and willingness to take courses were not persuasive because he had not taken concrete remedial steps. The Board accepted expert evidence that returning Junior would likely cause the dog to experience further psychological harm (para. 29). One notable aspect of this decision is that the judge weighed both the physical and psychological harm suffered by Junior. Psychological distress of animals is frequently not considered by the courts, despite being included in the PAWS Act under the definition of distress.

https://canlii.ca/t/k611x
Kennedy v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector 2024 onacrb 15872

MW v Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), 2024 NSAWAB1

Statute: Animal Protection Act (NS),
Section: s 26.5(d)
Province or Territory: Nova Scotia,
Offence: Abuse, Neglect,
Animal: Cat, Dog,
Type of Distress: Allegations of abuse and neglect
Sentence: N/A, Daisy was returned to the appellant
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Distress), Ownership/Care/Control, Provincial case (Procedure), Suitable care,

MW appealed the Nova Scotia SPCA’s seizure of his dog, Daisy, who was removed from his home on January 5, 2024 under the Animal Protection Act. The allegations of abuse were widespread and significant, with some of it caught on video uploaded to YouTube which were the source of the complaints. At the time Daisy was retrieved, the SPCA was also looking for a cat Mookie, also owned by the appellant, who was seen being squeezed by the appellant, but Mookie was never found.

The majority of the board found that despite credible video evidence of some improper handling and an unsafe environment during the “chainsaw incident”, but overall the evidence did not establish that Daisy’s health, safety or well‑being had been impaired to the statutory threshold.

Daisy was returned to MW at no cost as “the majority of the Board members found that the dog did not require ”immediate seizure” to preserve its life on January 5, 2024” (para. 130), and the seizure was improper under the purported section of the Act; the inspectors erred in going straight to removal rather than making attempts to work with MW by issuing warnings and compliance orders first (para. 132). The Board was unwilling to withhold Daisy’s return, primarily because there was no unquestionable evidence of physical or psychological abuse. After lengthy deliberation, the Board majority found that the seizure was not carried out appropriately under the Act, and was overturned.

One Board member had a final point overall dissent with the majority decision: “My primary dissent was to the creation of a dangerous environment with the use of the chain saw and axes. There was no clear evidence of the location of the animals during this video segment, and the Appellant’s erratic behavior appeared to be escalating; therefore, I feel the SPCA was justified in seizing the animals as it was in the pets’ best interest, with the knowledge that they had at the time” (para. 135).

https://canlii.ca/t/k5ws7
M. W. v NS SPCA 2024 NSAWAB 1

Talis (Re), [2024] O.R.B.D. No. 1231

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: sections 430(1), s145(5), s445(1); s672.47(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Killing of a dog that accused believed was going to harm him as part of his delusions
Sentence: Found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR); detained in hospital due to public safety risk
Legal Issue: Common defenses (Legal excuse), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Wilfulness,

This case refers to a hearing convened under the Ontario Review Board to determine whether the accused, Kalis Talis, represented a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition which was also the least onerous and least restrictive. The animal abuse Mr. Talis was charged with and found not criminally responsible for was the intentional injury and later killing of his mother’s dog as a direct result of delusions about the dog eating him and hallucinations of voices that he believed to be coming from the dog. Talis had a long history of mental illness and had been charged several times in the past but sentenced only to probation until the most recent incident.

The Board determined that Mr. Talis represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the appropriate disposition would be a detention order under the terms recommended by the mental health facility. The Board ruled that Mr. Talis suffers from a major mental illness and has displayed regular noncompliance with recommended medication as well as acute symptoms of his illness. He has displayed significant aggression both to animals and human beings who minimizes his actions and is noncompliant with treatment.

Mr. Talis was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) with respect to charges of mischief – interfere with lawful use, enjoyment, operation of property; failure to comply with a release order x2; kill or injure animal; and fail to comply with a probation order all contrary to the Criminal Code.

Importance of Case: Despite the fact that Mr. Talis had never directly harmed a human being physically – only threatened to – the Board draws a clear link between those threats and violence towards animals as a clear precursor to escalation. This demonstrates two important principles. First, that the Board does not view violence towards animals and towards humans as the same and places more weight on harm towards humans. However, it did acknowledge the link between violent treatment of animals and violent treatment of humans in ruling that the killing of the dog was sufficient grounds to detain Mr. Talis at the hospital.

https://canlii.ca/t/kd5wb
Talis (Re)

Jayamani Inc. o/a Jayalakshmi South Indian Cuisine v. Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 ONLAT 15751/LLCA

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 445.1(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Not specified, cruelty to animals occurred in conjunction with assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment and uttering threats to cause death
Sentence: Guilty plea on two counts of assault, while animal cruelty and other charges withdrawn, and granted Conditional Discharge with one-year probation ending on February 29, 2025 for July 2022; Liquor license refusal upheld
Legal Issue: Provincial case,

This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal based on facts indicating that the Appellant, Vikram Subramanian, had applied for a liquor sales licence and was denied by the Respondent claiming ineligibility for a licence under the Liquor Licence and Control Act due to past criminal conduct.

In the required Disclosure Report submitted with his licence application, the Appellant indicated that he had previously been charged with sexual assault from an incident in 2020 (pending trial), as well as two counts of assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, uttering threats to cause death, and cruelty to animals from July 2022. Part of the release order conditions from this incident were that he not possess or have care or control of an animal, which he breached in September 2023.

The Appellant pled guilty to the two counts of assault and was granted a conditional discharge with one-year probation and the other charges were withdrawn. He also had driving infractions and two licence suspensions for unpaid fines.

The tribunal concluded “that it is reasonable for this Tribunal to draw a nexus between his past behaviour and his ability (or lack thereof) to adhere to the rules and regulations which are imposed by virtue of possessing a valid liquor sales licence” (para.17) and agreed with the Respondent “that his conduct does indicate a repeated pattern of behaviour which displays not only a disregard for compliance with rules and regulations, but also with the wellbeing of others” (para. 18), leaving no reasonable alternative but to refuse the liquor licence. The decision from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to refuse the liquor licence application was upheld.

https://canlii.ca/t/k79gd
Jayalakshmi South Indian Cuisine v Registrar AGCO Act 2024 CanLII 97874