This is a sentencing decision on a wilful neglect case where the accused issued a guilty plea. The charges were a result of a BC SPCA investigation that began when a member of the public reported abandoned dogs in a building. After obtaining a warrant, investigators found five dogs living in squalor with feces, garbage, a strong smell of urine and drug paraphernalia throughout the residence; a puppy was in a crate with no water or food, other dogs were located throughout the property in different rooms with no food or water, and a fifth dog was located in a room which had water but no food (para. 13). Four dogs were able to recover and rehabilitate, but one had to be euthanized due to aggression that could not be resolved.
The presentencing report indicated that the 25-year-old accused had a history of mental health issues, including disordered substance use and psychosis, and had stopped taking her medication due to the side effects. In the section titled “Attitude and Understanding Regarding Offence”, the report writer indicated that the accused had been in psychosis and was removed to another part of the province by an ex-partner who refused to return her and whom she feared due to past abusive behaviour, so she was unsure how long she was gone and the dogs were left without care, but she wanted to take responsibility and acknowledges her wrongdoing involved in the offence (para. 29).
Counsel entered a joint submission for a conditional discharge which, despite deterrence and denunciation being the primary goals of sentencing for animal cruelty offences, was applicable to this unique case as Crown counsel indicated that the circumstances were on the lower end of the scale of neglect typically seen in these offences (para. 36). Aggravating factors were the housing and condition of the dogs when they were found and that they were unable to help themselves (para. 37) but mitigating factors were that four of the five dogs were able to be rehomed and the circumstances the accused was in at the time the offence occurred.
In reviewing the sentencing principles, the Court referred to section s 718.2(a)(iii.1), stating that some may consider it to only apply to human beings: “I do not. I believe it also applies to animals who are in the care of human beings, as was the situation in this case. So I am considering the victims, and the victims were the five dogs, one of whom had to be euthanized, and the other four of whom I am told have been rehabilitated” (para. 10). However, the Court agreed with counsel that a conditional discharge would be suitable for this case and issued a 12-month probation order that included for mental health counselling and prohibited any non-prescription substance use, and a five-year animal prohibition order.
https://canlii.ca/t/kcxfs