The accused was convicted in absentia of animal cruelty offences under the Ontario SPCA Act for failing to provide adequate food, water, veterinary care, and general welfare for two snakes. During the execution of a warrant, an Ontario SPCA agent discovered one snake dead and heavily infested with maggots, while a second boa constrictor was found alive but lethargic, dehydrated, and without access to food or water. The surviving snake was seized and placed in the care of the OSPCA. The accused later admitted ownership of the snakes and acknowledged that they had stopped eating, but had not sought veterinary treatment.
Although the accused did not attend trial or sentencing, evidence showed that he became visibly distressed when informed of the potential penalties associated with the charges. The court noted, however, that it was unclear whether this reaction reflected genuine remorse or concern about the prospect of conviction.
In determining an appropriate sentence, the court emphasized several evidentiary limitations. There was insufficient evidence regarding the snakes’ age, expected lifespan, specific temperature requirements, and the reasons why the accused failed to obtain veterinary care. The court therefore declined to rely on these factors when assessing sentence and focused instead on the proven failures to provide food, water, and necessary care.
The judge emphasized that allowing an animal’s condition to deteriorate to the point of death is “a grave matter” (para 13). However, the court also carefully considered mitigating factors, including the defendant’s lack of prior offences.
The court ordered the accused to pay $2,500 in restitution to compensate the OSPCA for the costs of caring for the surviving snake and prohibited him from owning snakes for five years. While the prosecution sought fines of $1,500 per count, the court imposed substantially lower fines, citing the evidentiary limitations, the absence of a prior record, and the principles set out in the 1989 Supreme Court decision, R v P (D.W).
The court also conditionally stayed the sentence on the third count because it arose from the same underlying conduct as the first two convictions, stating “in the event that the defendant is not successful in bringing an appeal from either conviction or sentence on the first two counts, then the conditional stay becomes permanent. Should the defendant bring a successful appeal in relation to counts 1 or 2, then the stay may be lifted” (para. 21).
https://canlii.ca/t/h1s71