R v Gaudin, 2006 CarswellOnt 6707 ONCJ

Facts are not revealed in the decision. Sentence of 6 months for causing suffering to an animal and 2 years probation with a 2 year animal prohibition.

R v Marshall, 2013 ONCJ 61

Trial of accused for killing two cats and injuring a third cat.  Steven Marshall has been charged with eight counts of animal cruelty. Marshall abused, injured and finally killed 3 cats rescued by his roommate. The post-mortem evidence is that the animals had been bludgeoned to death. The extent of the injuries and their broken necks speak to a high level of violence.

Accused has FASD and memory problems. He was alone with the cats when they were injured. Cats suffered blunt force trauma. Judge rejected the accused’s evidence they were accidentally injured.

Held: Convicted. The similarity of the injuries the black and orange cats sustained made it likely the same person injured and killed them. Similarly, Shana’s injuries could not have resulted from something falling on her in the closet.

R v Galloro & Galloro, 2006 ONCJ 263

The accused were husband and wife (Mr. and Mrs. Galloro) who owned 17 dogs, one of which was in the late stages of pregnancy. OSPCA issued a compliance order to take the dog to a veterinary hospital for emergency treatment, and in the end, inspectors took the dog after the accused failed to comply.

They were both charged with wilfully failing to provide suitable food and care for this pregnant dog, under s.446(1)(a). Both were charged with causing suffering by failing to seek medical attention for the pregnant dog, under s.446(1)(c). Mrs. Galloro was also charged with wilfully causing suffering by cutting the dog’s ears, under s.446(1)(a).

Evidence shows that Mrs. Galloro was the sole caregiver who subjected the pregnant dog to long-term neglect and wilfully failed to provide dog with sustainable or adequate food and care despite being previously warned.

Mrs. Galloro admitted to intentionally cutting the dog’s ears with scissors to relieve what she thought was blood buildup in the dog’s head which caused seizures. Vet witness said the seizures were associated with pregnancy and there was no medical basis for cutting her ears. Both accused knew that immediate emergency veterinary care was suggested by a veterinary doctor and required by compliance order, and both continued and extended the dog’s suffering by refusing to bring the dog to emergency care. Mrs. Galloro willfully caused pain to the dog since she knew that cutting the dog’s ears was not necessary and had ready access to proper vet care.

With respect to the pregnant dog, Mrs. Galloro was found guilty on all three counts. Mr. Galloro was found guilty only on count two.

In regards to the other 16 dogs in their care, both were found guilty under s.446(1)(a).

 

R v Perrault, 2007 NSPC 14

Perrault was charged after it was determined that he had cut the penis and testicles off a kitten acquired by him for his 10 year old daughter. The kitten’s distress continued through the weekend he was mutilated and while he was being treated in what was an unsuccessful effort to reverse the damage Perrault had inflicted.

Sentence: (1) A conditional sentence, to be served in the community, of 3 months with numerous conditions. (2) 2 years probation (3) Order under section 446 prohibiting his ownership of any animal anywhere in Canada for 2 years.

R v Olendy, 2001 OJ No 1957 ONCJ

Sentencing hearing of the accused Olendy. Olendy was convicted of wilfully causing pain to his guide dog. The dog was a 90 pound Labrador. Olendy lost his sight in a motor vehicle accident. He properly fed the dog and took it out to play. However, he repeatedly yelled at the dog and hit it. Olendy expressed no remorse for his actions. He previously abused the dog in 1996.

Received a suspended sentence and probation and an animal prohibition. His conduct was the equivalent to the abuse of a family member.

R v McHugh, 1965 NSSC 706

Appeal by the informant from an acquittal on a charge under Code s. 387(1) (a). McHugh was the owner of a wounded race horse. He allegedly neglected to provide the injured horse with proper care and attention – failing to follow instructions from a veterinarian, and providing the horse with inadequate conditions of food and shelter. The horse was euthanized after not responding well to McHugh’s healing techniques.

Appeal allowed, and new trial ordered.

R v Denny, 2009 NSPC 63

Charged with uttering threats, causing unnecessary injury to a dog and possession of a stolen dog and breach of probation. Accused threatened to slice the throats of his neighbours while they slept. A 3 month old pit bull was then found with a sliced throat. He had confessed to a witness that he had killed the dog and eaten it and then cleaned his hands in the nearby stream. Crown argued he was not criminally responsible. Expert said he was grossly psychotic at the time of the offences. The accused had a long history of schizophrenia, paranoid subtype, coupled with a substance abuse problem.

Held: found not criminally responsible, NCRMD.

Note: Accused was subsequently convicted of manslaughter – see [2016] N.S.J. No. 110 (NSSC).

R v Lupton, 2005 NSPC 11

A Great Dane was seize from a house where he was tied to a very short tether in front. He was emaciated, dull, lethargic, with no water or food available and extremely bony.

Charged with 446 neglect and provincial animal offences. Accused argued the fruits of the seizure, including the dog itself, its description and the pictures ought to be excluded as having been obtained via an unlawful search under the Charter

Held: Found guilty, based on Crown representations the criminal code charge was stayed for Kienapple, the search and seizure were warrantless but reasonable, exigent circumstances existed, the dog was in plain view and the evidence was not conscriptive.

R v Elliott, 2009 NSPC 5

Elliott operated a farm with a herd of about 75 cattle in adequate conditions, but SPCA located about 23 dead cattle carcasses on his property. Elliott claimed he could not sell any cattle due to contamination by military aircraft that flew over his property. Elliott was hoping that the Department of National Defense would compensate him for the contaminated cattle. The SPCA provided hay for Elliot’s cattle and advised Elliot to reduce the size of his herd. It became clear that the accused was waiting for all but a select few of his cattle to die. Some months later the SPCA seized 138 cattle and euthanized those that were unable to survive.

It was found that the accused failed to provide adequate food, water, shelter, and care for his cattle. Elliott decided on a course of action that willfully caused unnecessary pain, suffering, and injury to his cattle. He was found to be the owner of the cattle, and was solely responsible for their well-being, which he conceded in many letters he wrote to the SPCA. Elliott failed to provide any evidence of testing to show contamination of his cattle, and the neighbouring farm had not suffered from the alleged contamination problems. Thus, Elliott was found guilty on both counts.

Accused found guilty.

R v Murphy, 2010 NSPC 4

Trial. Accused charged with animal abuse, uttering threat and careless firearm. Dispute over whether the dog was attacking the neighbour’s chickens. In front of children accused shot the dog in leg that had to be amputated. This was not the first time the dog had paid a visit. On other occasions the dog had come over and killed, at various times, 10 to 15 of his chickens.

The accused pleaded defence of property. The Crown argued that the children suffered or were likely to suffer psychological harm as a result of the shooting of the dog.

Held: Convicted of animal abuse, acquitted of other charges, issues with credibility. Defence of property did not apply because the dog was not in the midst of attacking the chickens.