Freniere, a dog breeder, was charged under the Quebec Regulations on the Safety and Welfare of Cats and Dogs for failing to ensure a dog giving birth under their care had the ability to isolate herself from her litter according to her needs. Freniere was found guilty of the offence and ordered to pay a $1000 fine without costs within 12 months. The offence was noted after an inspector from the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Good noted that a dog had given birth the day before and there was no place to isolate themselves according to their needs. Freniere did not see the usefulness of having a spot for isolation, however he decided despite that to build benches the next day, allowing the dog to climb onto them in order to isolate herself from her litter.
The question was whether the court could rule on the usefulness of a provision in the regulation, and whether Freniere having constructed benches after the inspector’s visit constitutes a defense of due diligence after violating the regulation.
The trial judge found based on Directeur des poursuites criminelles et penales c Gagnon 2023 QCCQ 504 that as a result of the separation of powers, it was not up to the court to rule on whether legislation was useful. Their role was to determine whether the three essential elements were made out which were:
1. That the defendant is the guardian of
2. A female giving birth and
3. He fails to ensure that this female can isolate herself from her litter, according to her needs.
The trial judge also found that due diligence is the defendant demonstrating actions taken in order to avoid the commission of an offence. By only constructing benches after the offence was already noted, Freniere could not plead due diligence.
The trial judge took into account the financial difficulties of Freniere, and with the significant minimum fine that came with the sentence, decided to waive costs, leaving only the $1000 fine with 12 months to pay.
https://canlii.ca/t/k04j1