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