Welcome, visitor! [ Register | Login


rentwithpetscanada


Post Free Listing

Animal Justice Demands Animal Cruelty Investigation into Lethbridge Police Deer Killing Video

Animal Justice January 9, 2019

LETHBRIDGE – National animal law non-profit Animal Justice is calling for a criminal animal cruelty investigation into a disturbing video depicting a Lethbridge police officer repeatedly running over an injured deer with a police truck.

The video was taken by a concerned member of the public who was shocked to witness the officer’s actions. The witness reported that the officer ran over the deer at least five or six times before the deer died. The deer can be heard shrieking loudly in the video, and the witness described being upset and disturbed at hearing the deer’s cries.

The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) is investigating—a provincial police watchdog agency. In addition to investigating police misconduct offences, ASIRT is empowered to lay criminal animal cruelty charges against police officers. Animal Justice believes a full investigation is required to determine whether the officer should face criminal charges for the brutal and prolonged deer torture and killing.

“Animal cruelty is a very serious criminal offence, and there is little doubt that this poor deer suffered immensely while the officer repeatedly ran her over with a heavy truck. It is heartbreaking to watch the video and hear her crying out in pain as she was struck by the vehicle over and over again,” said lawyer Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice. “ASIRT must investigate this disturbing incident with a view to determining whether criminal animal cruelty charges should be laid. Police officers are not above the law. On the contrary, they are sworn to uphold the law. For that reason, animal abuse of this nature by a police officer is particularly disturbing and must be taken very seriously.”

Alberta’s provincial Animal Protection Act requires that an officer who finds a distressed animal must take steps to relieve the animal’s distress, including by seeking help from a humane society or caretaker. The animal can be euthanized on the advice of a veterinarian, but a police officer cannot make the decision to euthanize an animal on their own unless a veterinarian is unavailable.

There is no public information indicating that the officer sought assistance, advice, or an examination from a veterinarian or wildlife official. Moreover, running an animal over with a vehicle is never an acceptable way to euthanize an injured animal.

-30-

For more information, contact:

Camille Labchuk
Executive Director
camille@animaljustice.ca

Animal Justice

95 total views, 0 today

Animal Justice Seeks External Investigation After Cats Left in Vehicle for 22 Days by Edmonton Humane Society

Animal Justice June 5, 2018

EDMONTON – National animal law organization Animal Justice is seeking an independent external investigation into an incident that occurred at the Edmonton Humane Society. According to a statement issued by the Humane Society, it left three cats in a transport vehicle for 22 days between March 27 and April 18. When they were discovered, the cats were dehydrated, starving, and suffering from urine burns on their paws. They survived.

The incident appears to contravene the provincial Animal Protection Act, which prohibits causing distress to animals, and requires that animals be provided with adequate food, water, and shelter. The Animal Protection Act is a regulatory statute, meaning liability for a violation is assumed without proof that the person intended the consequences.

“No one doubts the Edmonton Humane Society’s commitment to animal protection, and their regret over this incident,” said lawyer Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice. “However, serious questions remain. The Edmonton Humane Society is responsible for investigating animal neglect. It is an obvious conflict of interest for the Humane Society to investigate itself over an apparent violation of the laws it enforces. An external agency, such as the police, must be called in immediately to investigate and determine whether charges should be laid.”

“When police forces are alleged to have committed illegal acts, it is standard practice for external agencies to investigate to ensure investigative independence and police accountability. This serious incident requires much more than the private internal review that was conducted.

“More broadly, this incident highlights the troubling lack of public accountability when it comes to the enforcement of animal protection laws. Humane societies and SPCAs are private charities, yet are tasked with enforcing public laws with little oversight. In no other area of law enforcement does this model still exist.”

-30-

For more information, contact:

Camille Labchuk
Executive Director
camille@animaljustice.ca

Animal Justice

267 total views, 0 today

An Upward Trajectory: Considering the Camardi case in the context of Canadian animal cruelty sentencing decisions

Animal Justice May 13, 2015

The recent case of Nicolino Camardi is one of those poignant instances of shocking animal cruelty that truly capture the public’s attention. It is also one of the most recent judicial decisions that portrays the continuing willingness on the part of Canadian courts to take animal abuse seriously, and sentence accordingly.

The Camardi[1] case began when a dog was discovered dead in a back alley in a southeast suburb of Calgary with her mouth taped shut.[2] A short time later, a cat was discovered nearby under similar circumstances, with tape covering her mouth and nose.[3] An investigation led police to Mr. Camardi, then 19 years old.

Mr. Camardi and his girlfriend had purchased the two year-old dog and six month-old kitten in October of 2013, and kept them for approximately three months before they were found dead. Mr. Camardi pled guilty to the charges of wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, in December of 2014. According to a Statement of Agreed Facts, read out in court, Mr. Camardi accepted responsibility for the prolonged torture and killing of the two animals in his care. He indicated that he physically abused and neglected the dog throughout the three month period before her death, and that he physically abused the kitten for a number of days, ultimately resulting in her death.[4]

After accepting his plea of guilt, the sentencing judge, Justice G.J. Gaschler, ordered Mr. Camardi to a total sentence of 22 months in jail. Having already served 16 months of pre-trial custody, Mr. Camardi would be made to serve an additional six months.[5] A probationary term of three years was imposed, to follow his release, with conditions including mandatory counselling.[6] Additionally, Mr. Camardi was handed a life-time prohibition from owning, having the custody or control of, or residing in the same premises of an animal or bird.[7]

Differences of opinion emerged with regard to whether the sentence was appropriate. Some argued that the sentence was too light; while others noted that the sentence was among the harshest of sentences imposed for an animal cruelty case in Canada. This disparity in opinion reflects the disparity in sentencing decisions that exist for animal cruelty and neglect cases across Canada.

In Camardi, Justice Gaschler reviews some of the sentencing jurisprudence that he relied upon in making his decision. He first noted that the Criminal Code was amended in 2008 to increase the range of sentences available in cases of animal cruelty – allowing for the choice between a maximum 18 months in jail upon summary conviction, or five years upon indictment.[8] Later case law described the amendment as a signal that Parliament was determined to deter and punish those who engaged in acts of cruelty to animals,[9] and judges began to observe that sentences for acts of animal cruelty were, in fact, increasing after the amendment.[10] The judge in the unreported 2013 Alberta case of R v Chailler remarked that, “offences of animal cruelty are seen in a far more serious light today than they were in previous years. This is in part due to our better understanding of how cruelty to animals presages other more chilling possible adult behaviours”.[11] The judge in R v Habermehl, 2013 ABPC 192, stated that the sentencing amendments “gave effect to widespread concerns that the Criminal Code provisions concerning cruelty to animals had fallen drastically out of step with current social values and thus restructured the sentences available”.[12]

In Camardi, Justice Gaschler went on to summarize several recent animal cruelty cases and the sentences that were handed down in those situations:

  1. R. v. Chailler, supra: Killing the family dog to demonstrate to a girl that had spurned him that he was serious and ought not be ignored. A single but calculated act – 16 months [incarceration].
  2. R. v. Habermehl, supra: In a failing relationship and exasperated with the family cat’s behaviours, the accused inflicted blunt force trauma, leading to the cat being euthanized – 90 days [incarceration] and one year probation.
  3. R. v. Anderson, ABPC 29 November 2012, unreported (110049731P1): The accused was frustrated by the family dog yipping, defecating and urinating. When the accused reached for the dog, the dog snapped at him; the accused grabbed the dog and in frustration threw it from a second floor window; outside the accused approached the dog, which was injured and yipping and kicked it to death – 10 month Conditional Sentence Order.
  4. R. v. Chalmers, ABPC 23 April 2013, unreported, (110779394P1): Frustrated by being awakened by a family cat knocking something off a counter, the accused grabbed the cat, choked it, put it under water and threw it 15-20 feet against a wall. The cat required surgery. A second family cat was hit against a wall with such force as to have broken the drywall – 9 months [incarceration] and 15 months of probation.
  5. R. v. McKinnon, ABPC 7 October 2014, unreported (140370248P1): The accused, age 19, visited a home where he had been formerly a resident and employing a ruse stole the family cat. His intention was to kill and cook the cat. The cat was stabbed, it’s neck broken and the body dismembered. The accused was discovered by smoke from a small fire, with a frying pan – 10 months [incarceration] and 3 years probation.
  6. R. v. Connors, 2011 BCPC 24: The accused was asked to care for a friend’s dog which was at the time suffering from an infection. The dog was not well trained and was defecating inside. Fueled by anger, alcohol and steroids, the accused exploded with violence to the dog that died from broken ribs, internal injuries and bleeding caused by blunt force trauma – 6 months [incarceration] and two years probation.
  7. R. v. Munroe, 2012 ONSC 4768: The accused over a period of approximately one month tortured and injured his girlfriend’s dogs, causing numerous injuries and the death of one dog – 12 months [incarceration] and probation.
  8. R. v. Tremblay, 2012 BCPC 410: The accused looking after his girlfriend’s dog while he was under the influence of heroin was seen kicking the dog and hitting it with a dish. The next day, the accused was seen hitting the dog repeatedly with a hammer to the dogs toes, head and body ignoring the dog’s cries of pain and attempts to flee. The dog survived – 6 months [incarceration] and 30 months probation.
  9. R. v. Rodgers, 2012 OJ No. 6287: Following an argument with his girlfriend, the accused threw a 12 week old puppy down stairs, then picked up the puppy and threw it to the ground. The puppy was killed as a result of a skull fracture – 8 months [incarceration] and 2 years probation.
  10. R. v. Helfer, 19 June 2014, unreported, Ontario Court of Justice: Following an argument with his mother, the accused pulled the family dog out of the home, kicked her, lifted her up by the chain around her neck, hit her with a rake, then repeatedly hit her with a shovel until the dog lay motionless and bloody. The accused threw the body in the dumpster, the dog survived – 2 years [incarceration] and 3 years probation.
  11. R. v. Alcorn, ABPC December, 2014, unreported, (130018757P1): The accused acquired a cat for the purpose of killing the cat in the context of a sexual engagement with a partner, whose participation was clouded by intoxication. The cat was hung from the rafters, stabbed multiple times and bled out. The body of the cat was displayed for viewing while the accused and his partner had intercourse – 20 months [incarceration] and 3 years probation.[13]

The average sentence for the cases outlined above was approximately 10.5 months of jail; and only one of the convicted persons received no jail time whatsoever (R v Andersen). The longest sentence was two years in jail for kicking and beating the family dog with a rake and shovel (R v Helfer). The dog survived in that case. Compare this to Mr. Camardi’s shorter 22-month sentence for torturing and killing two animals. Crown counsel argued that the aggravating factors in the Camardi case justified a harsher penalty. The extended period of time the animals were tortured and the fact that they died lends credibility to this assertion. Furthermore, while some judges have commented on the connection between animal abuse and killing and the threat that violent individuals pose to human safety, arguably many shorter sentences fail to truly reflect the seriousness of the acts – which are often the calculated torture and murder of living, sentient beings and companions.

Despite this, it is becoming apparent, and has been observed by the courts as outlined above, that overall sentences for acts of animal cruelty are becoming increasingly more harsh right across Canada since the 2008 amendments to the Criminal Code.

It appears that as society becomes more and more cognizant of animals’ ability to feel and experience pain and pleasure, happiness and stress, we become less and less willing to tolerate acts of blatant cruelty to animals, especially to companion animals. This intolerance is reflected in sentences that put great weight on an animal’s suffering and the importance of punishing those responsible for causing it. Increasingly harsh sentences for perpetrators of animal cruelty provide judges with precedent to provide stronger sentences in the future. The courts’ increasing willingness to acknowledge the seriousness of animal cruelty, and the absolute repugnance society has for such acts, provides the impetus for increased protection for animals in Canada.

The text of the R v Camardi decision can be found at the following link:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2015/2015abpc65/2015abpc65.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20camardi&autocompletePos=4

_________________________________________________

Written by Sarah Ure – BA, JD – Articling Student for Animal Justice Canada

This blog and the contents herein are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to seek legal counsel prior to acting on any matters discussed herein. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

_________________________________________________

[1] R v Camardi, 2015 ABPC 65 [Camardi].

[2] The Canadian Press, “Starved dog with mouth taped shut found dead in Calgary alley”, online: CTV News <http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/starved-dog-with-mouth-taped-shut-found-dead-in-calgary-alley-1.1642799>.

[3] “Husky, kitten found dead, muzzled in Calgary alley”, 2014 January 16, online: CBC News <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/husky-kitten-found-dead-muzzled-in-calgary-alley-1.2499280>.

[4] Camardi, supra note 1, at Appendix A.

[5] Ibid, at paras 38 – 39.

[6] Ibid, at para 30.

[7] Ibid, at para 31.

[8] Ibid, at paras 21 + 23.

[9] Camardi, supra note 1, at para 22; R v Wright, 2014 OJ No. 5659.

[10] Camardi, supra note 1, at para 22; R v Chailler, 26 Aug 2013 unreported (121450597P1).

[11] Camardi, supra note 1, at para 22.

[12] Ibid, at para 23.

[13] Camardi, supra note 1, at para 27.

Animal Justice

513 total views, 0 today

Page 1 of 21 2
  • Loppa (formerly Cece)

    by on May 28, 2019 - 0 Comments

    Loppa (formerly Cece) has been with us for two years. She loves sleeping on top of her big brother Rusty and giving kisses and cuddles to her human family. She's smart, brave, happy, and brings us all great joy. Thank you SCARS for bringing us together. Erla Anderson

    The post Loppa (formerly Cece) appeared first on Second Chance Animal Rescue Society.

    Second Chance Animal Rescue Society

  • Submit your photo for the 2020 SCARS Calendar

    by on June 1, 2019 - 0 Comments

    Hi everyone, we have already started working on the 2020 SCARS calendar which raises funds to help SCARS continue with their animal rescue initiatives. If you have an exceptional photo of a SCARS foster or if you adopted a SCARS animal and would like a chance to have them featured in our 2020 calendar,

    The post Submit your photo for the 2020 SCARS Calendar appeared first on Second Chance Animal Rescue Society.

    Second Chance Animal Rescue Society

  • Emergency Wabasca Wildfire Rescue

    by on May 31, 2019 - 0 Comments

    (May 30, 2019 - 9AM) Last night as the evacuation call went out for the Wabasca and Big Stone Cree Nation, SCARS volunteers jumped into action. The community pounds were at capacity and the animals so vulnerable in the face of a raging wildfire. With full support of the community and evacuation officials, our

    The post Emergency Wabasca Wildfire Rescue appeared first on Second Chance Animal Rescue Society.

    Second Chance Animal Rescue Society

  • Here’s How to Help Animals with the New Ontario Animal Protection Survey

    by on May 31, 2019 - 0 Comments

    Everything is about to change for animal protection in Ontario. In March 2019, the Ontario SPCA announced it will no longer enforce animal cruelty laws in the province and is putting this public responsibility back in the hands of the government, where it belongs. The Ontario government is now surveying the public to help decide how... Read more » Animal Justice

  • Israel to hold election rerun after coalition deadlock

    by on May 31, 2019 - 0 Comments

    Israel to hold election rerun after coalition deadlockIsrael's parliament voted early Thursday to hold new elections only months after April polls in an unprecedented move provoked by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attempts to remain in power despite failing to form a coalition. The vote was prompted by Netanyahu's failure to reach a coalition deal even though his Likud party, along with its right-wing and religious allies, won a majority of 65 of 120 seats in the April 9 elections. In a matter of weeks, Netanyahu has shifted from victory celebrations to tense, behind-the-scenes efforts to ensure his long tenure in power continues, eventually opting for new elections.


    Animal and Pet News

Article Categories

Article Archives

Who's Online

  • 0 Members.
  • 15 Guests.