Database

This is a sentencing hearing for the accused who had pled guilty to wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to a kitten that he had purchased in April 2021. The accused admitted to police that he had never owned a kitten before, and found that he was allergic. The daily care and management of the kitten became a burden, and he was also frustrated and annoyed by the kitten’s regular biting, scratching and failure to use the litterbox. He admitted to wanting to punish the kitten so he picked them up, swung them by their tail and smashed them to ground, then stepped on them in a prolonged assault that lasted 20-25 minutes.

The Crown, noting that the maximum sentence for this offence had increased in 2008 to first 18 months and then in 2019 to two years less a day for summary convictions, sought a six-month jail sentence followed by two years of probation, and a 25-year prohibition order against owning or residing with any animals. Defence counsel was seeking a 15-month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions followed by probation, stating that imprisonment would have an adverse effect on the accused’s future prospects.

The Crown relied on recent case law from R v Geick, R v Chen, and R v Miller to support their sentencing submissions which emphasize the need for proportionate sentencing reflecting the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The judge acknowledged Chen as the leading appellate authority on sentencing in animal cruelty cases and although not binding in BC, found the Court’s reasoning to be highly persuasive, and went on to describe the accused’s conduct as “torturous”, causing the kitten fear, distress and pain (para. 45). They did not accept the accused’s inexperience as a pet owner, the implication that abuse of domestic animals is tolerated in his culture, or that the use of violence in order to discipline an animal for its natural behaviour is justified or reduces moral blameworthiness (para.49).

The judge balanced aggravating factors such as the degree of force and the defenselessness of the animal, whom they referred to as a victim, that was reliant on the accused for care, placing the accused in a position of trust against mitigating factors that included the early guilty plea, young age and mental state of the accused at the time which had declined due to pandemic isolation. The accused contended that the negative publicity he had received in this case should be considered as mitigating, citing concerns for his personal safety, but the judge did not find it to be so unique or extraordinary as to alleviate the impact on sentencing.  

After leaning toward the facts being sufficiently similar in Chen and rejecting most of the defence’s case submissions which were decided prior to that Alberta Court of Appeal decision, the judge determined that a non-custodial sentence would be insufficient in its reflection of the violence shown in this case. A probation order was deemed unnecessary for the accused’s rehabilitation or public safety. A sentence of four months incarceration and a 25-year animal prohibition was imposed.