�ݺ�ߣ

Improving Canadian
Federal Anti-Cruelty
Animal Legislation
by Suzana Gartner
February 6, 2014
Ontario Bar Association –Animal Law Institute

• Lack of protectionfor animals against
violentacts;
• Cases in media ignitepublic debate;
• Widespreadrequeststo update law;
• Largely unsuccessfulParliamentary
processes;
• Remainsa controversialissue.
Weak Federal Anti-Cruelty Laws
result in:

• Maintaina justand peacefulsociety;
• Keep individualssafe from harm;
• Prohibitbehaviorthat threatens serious
harm to individualsand society.
Social Justice goals of Criminal Law:

• Researchlinks humans who abuse
animalsand seriousdomesticabusers
Animal Law & Social Justice:
Ascoine
Loring & Bolton
McClellan
Peterson & Farrington
Ribbans

• Studies demonstrateanimal abuserswill
go on to commitmore seriouscrimes
againsthumans;
• Strong anti-cruelty animal legislation can
deterother formsof violencein society.
Animal Law & Social Justice:

R v Menard:
(1978) 43 C.C.C. (2d) 458 (Que CA):
• Operator of an animal shelter killed the dogs by gassing them to death
by use of motor vehicle exhaust (cheapest method);
Animals were conscious for at least 30 seconds and experienced pain and
suffering and burns from the intense heat;
Found guilty for killing animals…….
Sentenced to……………..
Lamer JA wrote what became the leading case interpreting the general
Anti-cruelty provision and the concepts of “unnecessary” for modern times.
This case illustrates how weak convictions are not a deterrent to animal abuse .

R v Menard (1978) 43 C.C.C. (2d) 458 (Que CA):
The animal is inferior to man, and takes its place within a hierarchy which
is the hierarchy of animals, and above all is a part of nature with all its
"racial and natural" selections. The animal is subordinate to nature and to
man. It will often be in the interests of man to kill and mutilate wild or
domestic animals, to subjugate them and, to this end, to tame them with
all the painful consequences this may entail for them and, if they are too
old, or too numerous, or abandoned, to kill them.
Lamer JA wrote what became the leading case interpreting the general
Anti-cruelty provision and the concepts of “unnecessary” for modern
times.
This illustrates how weak convictions are not a deterrent to animal abuse.

Few abusers convicted
• Require a high level of mens rea;
• Crimes difficult to prosecute due to the term ‘willful neglect’
–requires proof that an accused intended to harm or kill his
her animal;
Part XI sections 444-447 of the Code re: Crimes against Property:

Sections444-447of Part XI of the Codeare
Crimes againstProperty:
3 typesof offences against animals:
1. Killingandharminganimals(445);
2. Torturinganimals(445.1);
3. Neglectinganimals(446).

PartXIsections444-447oftheCodere:Crimes
againstProperty:
• Animals are treated as Property;
• Protectedonly in relation to their
relationshipto humans;
• Ownedanimalsare protectedbetter than
unownedanimals, i.e. cattle vs. strays.

Legal recommendations
to update these laws:
In 1987 the Law Reform Commission of Canada had recommended an entirely
new part be created in the Code
“What the Criminal law should address was the growing sentiment that it was
no longer appropriate to treat crimes against animals as mere property
offences.”
In 1998 the Department of Justice commissioned a report ‘Crimes Against
Animals.’

Crimes against Animals:
• Consultation process to update the law;
• Revealed a broad spectrum of opinion;
• Consensus –majority view was that animals
should be protected from intentional cruelty
and needless pain.

Crimes Against Animals:
Among questions asked was whether respondents thought:
1. Is abuse of animals closer in seriousness to producing
child pornography; or,
2. Is abuse of animals closer in seriousness to stealing an
automobile?

Crimes Against Animals:
Recommendations:
• Reform of the law is not intended to forbid conduct that
is socially acceptable or authorized by law so these
provisions do not restrict or otherwise interfere with
normal and regulated activities i.e. hunting, fishing, etc.
• Crimes against animals is separated from other property
offences in Part XI of the Code ;
• Moved to part dealing with morals based offences.

Bill C-17:
• Proposed to move crimes against animals from property from Part XI
of the Code to a revised Part V which would include sexual offences
against public morals, disorderly conduct, and cruelty to animals;
-Introduced a definition of “animal” to mean a “vertebrate, other than
a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain
-Made it an offence to kill an animal without lawful excuse;
-Changed the offences from summary conviction to hybrid offences.

15 Failed attempts to update
the Code:

Omnibus Bills involve many groups
Animals =
Property
Hunting &
Fishing
Industries
Aboriginal
Practices
Pet
Owners
Medical
Research

Complications due to
Parliamentary Process:
The parliamentary process has too many possibilities for someone to raise
some objection to some element of an omnibus bill because of the nature of
the Parliamentary process which encourages criticism to passage of Bills;
Bills need to be more specific to pass, particularly when they are ‘contentious’
Issues such as the status of animals and amongst stakeholders with a vested
interests (who hold strong interests) on these issues.

Revisedthepenaltyprovisions:
Animalcrueltyoffencesarehybridoffencesasopposed
tosummaryconvictions;
Maximumpenaltiesare5yearjailterm,unlimitedfines
andlifetimeprohibitionfromanimalownership.
Restitutiontoagenciescaringforabusedanimals.
BRYDEN’S BILL C-203

Criticism of BRYDEN’S BILL:
Criticizedbyavarietyofinterestgroups,i.e.animalwelfare
groupsfornotbeingenoughofachangebecause:
Increasedpenaltieswithoutaddressingconvictionrates;
AnimalscrueltycontinuestobeinpropertypartofCode.

Anti-Cruelty Case Law:
Since Bryden’s Bill:
Rv.Munroe(2010ONCJ226):
• Accusedsubjected2dogstotorture,usingheat,electricity
andbluntforce,causinghemorrohaging,aseparatedretina,
acollapsedlungand14ribfracturesoverprolongedpd;
• Sentencedtotwelve(12)monthsandanorderprohibiting
Munroefromowing,havingcustodyorresidinginthesame
premisesasananimalorbirdfor25years.
• Judgenotedtheamendments“representafundamentalshiftinParliament’sapproachtothesecrimesand
suchadramaticchangeinapenaltyprovisionisvirtuallyunheardofinourcriminallaw.”

QUANTO’S LAW: SERVICE ANIMALS UPDATE OF THE LAW

Recommendations:
Proposeprovisionsincrementally, better
protectsserviceanimals, i.e. Quanto’slaw;
Providea definitionof ‘animal’;
Things everyoneagreed to not in Bryden’sbill
Consensusasaprecursorto eachchange;

RvZeller(1998ABPC19):
• Duringanargumentwithhiswifebeatherpuppytodeath
withashovel;
• Chargedwithwillfullycausingunnecessarypainand
sufferingtoananimal;
• Sentencedto60daysinjailand2yearsprobation.
RvPower(2003OCA176);
• Chargedwithwillfullycausingunnecessarypain,suffering,
andinjurytoananimalandmischief;
• Sentencedto90daysinjail
Examples of Weak Anti-
Cruelty Convictions:

RvPaul(1997)BCJNo808(Prov.Ct):
• Accusedpleadguiltytowillfullycausingpainandsuffering;
hewasaskedtokillastarvingcatbyfamilyandstabbedthe
cat5timesandthencrushedthecat’sskullwithhisboot;
• Sentencedto1dayinprisonandprohibitedfromowning
animalsfor2years.
Examples of Weak Anti-
Cruelty Convictions:

Suzana Gartner
is a Canadian Lawyer who focusses on
Animal Law and Dispute Resolution.
For further information:
SuzanaGartner.com
Gartner Kostanza
Gartner’s Animal Law practice
The Dispute Resolution Specialists
Gartner’s Alternative Dispute Resolution practice

�ݺ�ߣ

Animal Law: Improving Canadian Federal Anti-Cruelty Animal Legislation

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Animal Law: Improving Canadian Federal Anti-Cruelty Animal Legislation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Animal Law: Improving Canadian Federal Anti-Cruelty Animal Legislation