R v Carter, 2006 ABPC 341

Accused charged with causing or permitting the continuance of the distress of 9 horses by depriving them of adequate food, water, space or veterinary care. Satisfied that the accused was the person ordinarily in charge of the animals in question, that the animals were in distress in accordance with the definition in s 1(2) of the Animal Protection Act, and that she had no excuse in law, the accused was found guilty.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Alberta

Topics: adequate food and waterdistressdue diligencefailure to providefarmhorses

Report a Broken Link