The accused, T.B., attended a large party held by another teenage at his parents house in Brampton on June 29, 2002. Around ten to fifteen teenagers were invited; more showed up upon “hearing about it,” and a lot of them were consuming alcohol. Uninvited, T.B. came with a group of friends and brought with him his friend Andre Alleyne’s pit bull named “Tiger,” who he had a close relationship with. The presence of Tiger was not welcomed by the crowds at the party and the accused was told that his dog would have to leave.
After a series of squabbles between the invited guests and T. B.’s group, the dog attacked two people, Eddie Alessi and Marty Brown, under command of T.B. Tiger was hit over the head with a beer bottle “with full force” by Simon Keenan to make it release its grip on Eddie Alessi, and was kicked and punched by various individuals, including the victims, in self-defence. The dog was described as letting out a “little cry” when struck with the beer bottle and then ran away.
The defence argued that T.B. lacked “appropriate control or decision-making capacity” over the dog. to test whether T.B have the required control and intent for the dog attacks, the Court accepted evidence that T.B said “you want this? Bring it” before unleashing the dog, the evidence that he repeatedly yelled “get him” to incite the dog to attack, and that T.B. had a close, possessive relationship with the dog, referring to it as “my dog” during testimony. Together with the fact that Tiger was also responsive of all these commands, the Court found beyond reasonable doubt that T.B. did have de facto control of the dog, despite the dog belongs to his friend Andre Alleyne.
Following the precedent set in R. v McLeod, which held that the definition of “weapon” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code includes both animate and inanimate objects and the focus on the definition should be on the use or intended use of the object to cause injury or threat, the Court ruled that a dog can be a weapon. Altogether, the Court concluded T.B used the dog as a weapon with the request intent for assault.
Despite it has been proven T.B. had the intent to use Tiger as a weapon for assault, the judge acquitted him on the animal cruelty count. The decision is based on a reasonable doubt on the presence of mens rea and “unnecessary suffering.” The charge that T.B unlawfully did willfully cause unnecessary suffering to a dog required proof that he had objective foresight that his actions would lead to the dog being beaten. The court had a reasonable doubt that T.B., when unleashing and inciting the dog to attack, had required foreknowledge that people would have to beat the dog to fend it off. However, his intent was for the dog to attack others, not necessarily for the dog itself to be harmed in the process. In addition, the Crown led no specific evidence about the actual injury or suffering endured by the dog. There was no testimony from a veterinarian or the dog’s owner about any lasting harm, wounds, or the extent of the animal’s pain. The evidence showed the dog ceased its attacks when hit, cried out, but was then able to be led away from the scene. The court was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether the suffering inflicted met the legal threshold of being “unnecessary” and caused by the accused’s actions within the meaning of the Criminal Code.
The court concluded that while T. B.’s actions were reckless and criminal in their use of the dog as a weapon against people, the Crown failed to prove the specific elements of the animal cruelty charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The focus of his criminal liability was on his actions toward the human victims, not toward the dog. Consequently, T.B. was found not guilty on animal cruelty.
https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/bd2b11e5-fe63-46f7-b995-e821a73fbb05/?context=1505209