This is the transcript for the sentencing submissions for the Winnipeg couple who had pled guilty on six counts of causing animal suffering in a highly publicized case involving animal crush videos created and sold through a Telegram messaging group. Details from the plea submission are here.
The Crown reviewed some concerns highlighted in the presentencing reports (PSR) for each offender and suggested that they should be taken with “a large helping of salt” (p. T13). For the male offender, the Crown noted inconsistencies where on “page 4 he says he was turned off and didn’t feel anything, didn’t feel anything positive from his behaviour, but then we have text conversations with Ms. Lima which suggests the opposite”; and “at page 17 he says he had no motivation to harm animals, but then we see the contrary again in the texts, and the PSR concludes saying that he lacks empathy with the animals and fails to appreciate the severity of his actions, and also makes a point of saying he has a history of controlling manipulating intimidating behaviour” (p. T13).
In the female offender’s PSR, the Crown again noted discrepancies between what was reported there and what the evidence indicated, with concerns that she did not appear to take full responsibility on one of her previous fraud convictions. where she had been convicted twice of defrauding elderly patients when she worked as a home healthcare aide. The PSR went on to highlight that “on page 4 she denies knowing anything about the commercial aspect of this whole enterprise” and “she says she feels bad, and then that she was coerced by her co-accused to do this, but then we have her diary which seems to indicate something else, and her comments in the text messages wanting some birds, wanting to crush things, and how she’ll never stop” (p. T14). The Court found the PSRs for both accused to be self-serving.
Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas but were outweighed by the aggravating factors of the female offender’s previous criminal history, the prolonged suffering and brutality involved in the torture, and abuse of a position of trust toward animals, all of which increase moral blameworthiness. The Crown also highlighted the planning and effort involved in obtaining the animals, and the amount of organization put into the website where the rules and regulations for membership asked potential members to submit new original videos and photos of similar acts of cruelty, which “just perpetuates and promotes further violence against animals” (p. T15). The commercialization and monetization of the animal torture, where a 15-minute video would cost $150 and the price list with its many double or triple digit figures indicates that the torture and suffering were lengthy until the animal’s death, was also referred to as aggravating. Other evidence read into the record was a Facebook message exchange from April 2024, where the offenders imagined finding and crushing a child, and saying how no one would ever find it.
The Crown submitted case law focusing on denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives in animal abuse cases, including Geick, Chen, Friesen, and Nichols.
The Court also heard a Community Impact Statement (CIS), submitted by Winnipeg Humane Society with support from Humane Canada, outlining the broader harm caused by this case.
The CIS described the animals as having endured extreme psychological and physical suffering, including prolonged distress, fear, and attempts to escape. In some instances, animals were forced to witness the abuse and death of others before suffering the same fate. Going beyond the animal victims, the statement detailed the significant and measurable effect on the broader public. The case generated widespread outrage and led to the formation of Project Artemis Advocates (PAW), a grassroots organization that quickly grew to more than 2,000 members. Community members organized 18 vigils and rallies, even in extreme winter conditions, demonstrating the depth of public engagement and distress. As one section from the CIS made by the founder of PAW cited in court emphasized, the case has helped shift public perception away from the idea that animal harm is trivial, that it’s “just an animal”, to underscore that animal protection is a shared community value.
The CIS concluded that the abuse had lasting psychological, physical, and social effects on both animals and the human community, an assessment that aligned closely with the Crown’s submission on aggravating factors.
A joint sentencing recommendation of 12 years’ imprisonment, lifetime prohibition on owning or possessing animals under s. 447.1(1), and DNA orders for each offender was submitted for the Court’s consideration. Both Crown and defence counsel acknowledged that this case would likely be precedent-setting. The scale, organization, and commercialization of the offences distinguish it from prior animal cruelty cases.
Sentencing submissions incl CIS Kabecz and Lima - 26FEB11