This decision involved a status review application concerning six children, ages 5 to 14, with significant special needs. The Society became involved with the family in 2000 because of lack of parental supervision, children’s behavioural problems, the parents’ convictions for animal cruelty and the filthy and unsafe housing conditions. The Society sought an order to make the three older children Crown wards with parental access and the three younger children Crown wards without access. The respondent parents wanted all children returned to their care
In September, 2007, the parents presented two severely emaciated shepherd-mix dogs to Lincoln County Humane Society, claiming they had found them as strays. Both dogs significantly underweight, dehydrated, severely malnourished, and unable to hold their own heads up. Animal Control Officer Todd Menard described this as “the worst case of animal starvation” he had ever seen (para. 134). The B.s were charged with cruelty to animals; Mr. M.B. was additionally charged with public mischief for lying about finding the dogs as strays (para. 135). On July 7, 2008, both parents pled guilty to two charges each of causing unnecessary suffering to their dogs (para. 136).
For the court’s analysis of the parents’ capability of giving sufficient care to their four children, it gave substantial weight to the animal cruelty evidence. The court drew parallels between how the parents treated the dogs and how they treated their children, claiming that the parents had limited knowledge of the needs of both of their children and pets, had failed to ensure those needs were met, and exhibited the willingness to deny the difficulty in providing necessary care to meet those needs (paras. 247-248).
In this case, the element of animal cruelty is substantively integrated into the court’s reasoning about ongoing protection concerns. The Court used it to demonstrate that the parents’ deficits in caregiving—particularly their failure to recognize needs, provide adequate care, and accept responsibility—were longstanding and deeply ingrained patterns, not temporary shortcomings. This directly supported the conclusion that the children remained in need of protection and that returning them to parental care was not in their best interests.
The Court ordered all six children to be made Crown wards, with access granted for the three older children and no access for the three younger children, basing on their analysis of the parent’s, M.B. and T.B.’s ability to care for them.
https://canlii.ca/t/fm0hp