This is an unreported decision where Marineland appeals its conviction under Ontario’s Provincial Animal Welfare Services (PAWS) Act on three charges for failing to comply with a 2021 order relating to the care and removal of three black bears kept at the facility, Slash, Toad and Lizzy, alleging that the trial justice had erred in denying their application for a stay of the charges which argued that it was an abuse of process.
The facility had been convicted in March 2024 based on an agreed statement of facts they had presented which they indicated would be sufficient “to make a finding of guilt”, but lawyer Scott Fenton stressed that Marineland was not making a guilty plea and the park maintained the ability to appeal.
Marineland argued that the prosecution was abusive, that the revocation of the order nullified the offences, and that the presiding Justice of the Peace had misapplied the test for abuse of process and stay of proceedings set out in R v Babos, 2014 SCC 16.
Regarding the argument that the province’s revocation negated the offences, the Justice observed:
[17] The Appellant further argued in their factum of December 29, 2023, and in the argument before me that the Ministry simply could have sent the Appellant a letter indicating that given the bears had been removed that compliance with the Order was no longer necessary. The legislation does not contemplate a letter being sent. They argue instead that the Ministry issued a formal Revocation saying that the Order had been complied with.
[18] I reject this argument. For this to be the case it would mean that the Revocation order
would effectively nullify what were valid grounds to prosecute Marineland. I find this would
result in an absurdity.
The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the revocation did not erase Marineland’s prior non-compliance and that no abuse of process was established. The Justice confirmed that the Babos framework had been properly applied and emphasized that maintaining public confidence in the enforcement of animal welfare laws required that prosecutions proceed where valid orders had been breached.
R v Marineland of Canada Inc., 2025 ONCJ