R v Chan, 1999 ABPC 68, 251 AR 44

Accused charged with causing/permitting a cat to be in distress, contrary to section 2(1) of the Animal Protection Act. The accused was keeping a cat in the trunk of his car with little to no food and water in sub freezing temperatures. Holding that one of the fundamental principles of sentencing in regulatory offences is deterrence, the Court fined Mr. Chan $1500.

Engaging in an exercise of statutory interpretation, the Court determined that sections 12(2) and 12(3) of the Act authorize the Court to make an order restraining the accused from having custody of any animal, and ordered such for a period of two years.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Alberta

Topics: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomscatcultural practicesdeterrentliteral interpretationrestrictions on post conviction animal custodysentencingsentencing principles for regulatory offences

Report a Broken Link