The 29-year-old accused, who had a serious criminal history including a three-year jail sentence for aggravated assault at age 20 and significant addiction issues, was charged with animal cruelty for snapping the neck of a kitten. He had claimed interest in a kitten from a litter that a woman was trying to find homes for and arranged to meet her in her home. After using both hands to snap the kitten’s neck, he threw the body onto the floor and fled the apartment.
The woman called the police, who located the accused driving his vehicle and pulled them over, where he showed signs of impairment. The accused was also belligerent, and back up was needed to arrest him. He later conceded that he had been driving while impaired, leading to a conviction under s.320.14(1)(a); he was also convicted of mischief for urinating on the floor of the police interview room.
The Court considered aggravating factors such as the kitten being killed in front of their owner (her victim impact statement described long-term psychological impacts), the grossness and clear cruelty of the act, the violence inflicted on a defenseless and sentient being, the lack of insight the accused demonstrated regarding his alcohol problem and how it contributed to his behavior, and his past criminal record of violence (paras. 25-28). The mitigating factors included the accused’s partner’s support and positivity about his parenting ability and commitment to financially supporting them, having a young son as a source of motivation to change his behavior, and positive employment prospects (paras. 29-30).
It was determined that a conditional sentence would not be enough for denunciation because of the gravity of the cruelty to animals offence, and his past breaches of court orders leaving little confidence that conditions would be followed (para. 32). The Court also mentioned the Downes principles, where the sentence should not be reduced because of the strictness of the accused’s release because doing so would provide him a benefit for disregarding court orders (para. 33). The Court found a jail sentence was necessary, as well as a prohibition against having animals due to the nature of the offence. Defence counsel opposed this order as unnecessary, to which the Court replied: “I do not agree. [The accused] killed a kitten. He must not be in a position of ownership, care, or trust with an animal”(para.41).
The accused was sentenced to 12 months jail time minus pre-sentence custody for the animal cruelty charge, as well as an order prohibiting owning, custody, or residing within the same premises as an animal or bird for 5 years. The Court also imposed a two-year probation order that included a no contact and restraining order from the victim’s owner, counseling for anger management and alcohol abuse, and psychological skills training. The accused also received three-month jail sentence for mischief, and 30 days jail sentence for impaired driving, both sentences to be served concurrently.
https://canlii.ca/t/k2rm8