R v Jaffrey, 2023 ABCJ 241

The accused was charged with causing significant injuries to a cat Lucy contrary to section 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Evidence suggested Lucy suffered non-accidental blunt force trauma inflicted by at least three separate assaults, which were directed at Lucy’s head, her forelimbs or ribs, and her abdomen. Evidence additionally suggested the injuries would have been painful and were consistent with being dealt by a person. However, the Court determined that, due to the case’s circumstantial evidence and relying on Jaffrey having “near exclusive access” to Lucy, there was a reasonable doubt to Jaffrey’s involvement in the offence.

In their reasoning, the Court went through the presumption of innocence and what “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” entailed. They mentioned both concepts being fundamental to the justice system, how “reasonable doubt” cannot be based on sympathy or prejudice but rather common sense, and that it is insufficient to prove someone is probably guilty while not necessary to prove they are absolutely guilty. They also highlighted both credibility (being a witness’ veracity) and reliability (witness’ accuracy) being important. The Court used the principles of R v Ryon 2019 ABCA 36 to set out the procedure that

  1. If the evidence of the accused is believed, the accused must be acquitted
  2. Even if the evidence of the accused is not believed, if it raises a reasonable doubt, the crown has not met its burden and the accused must be acquitted
  3. If the court is uncertain of whether to believe the evidence of the accused, or the competing evidence, the accused must be acquitted; and
  4. Even if the evidence of the accused is rejected, or it fails to raise a reasonable doubt, it must be asked whether on the basis of the evidence accepted, the crown proved each and every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized there was no direct evidence of how Lucy was injured or who was responsible. They outlined the principles of circumstantial evidence from R v Villaroman 2016 SCC 33, saying an inference of guilt from circumstantial evidence should only be drawn if that is the only reasonable conclusion that remains from the evidence. However, the Court cautioned against drawing inferences too readily and that all other reasonable explanations must be considered, as well as the absence of evidence. Conclusions which are alternative to the guilt of the accused must be considered even if they have not been proven on actual facts.

The Court accepted that Lucy was violently assaulted from human activity based on the evidence given from medical experts using background medical examination records and visual observations from the doctors that treated Lucy. The expert testimony regarded Lucy’s condition after the injuries and the evidence showing her injuries involved blunt force trauma rather than a chronic condition or self-induced accident. They also found Jaffrey’s evidence to be reasonable and credible, with stories being corroborated by other sources. There were periods of the day where the accused was present and alone with Lucy, but he was not the only one in that position. Near exclusive access is highly relevant, and if there had been other incriminating circumstances, there may have been enough to establish responsibility for the offence. However, there was no evidence of motivation to harm nor any physical evidence.

Other relevant facts to the case included testimony that the accused owned two Weimaraner dogs who lived with both himself and Lucy’s owner, and that he was often away for his job and not at the residence on the day of the injury. He believed one of his dogs had caused the injury, due to a previous incident where one of the dogs had bit and punctured Lucy’s tail. While having come and gone from the residence multiple times, the accused denied seeing Lucy the day the injuries were suffered.

The Court determined it would be dangerous and unreasonable to conclude that the accused had the exclusive opportunity to commit the offence by eliminating others with a similar opportunity on the strength of no more than similar denials and the perceived unlikelihood that they may be the responsible party. There was a reasonable doubt meaning conviction could not be founded.

The accused was found not guilty.