R v Haaksman, [2013] OJ No 927 (ON Ct J)

This is the sentencing of Travis Haaksman and Carl Wood. They entered pleas of not guilty to the offence of willfully and without lawful excuse killing a dog, contrary to section 445.(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. However, both accused were found guilty. It was found that Haaksman and Wood caused Haaksman’s dog to drown by throwing him into a water-filled quarry after leashing him to a cement cinder block. Both offenders were 19, of below average intelligence, with no prior record at the time of the offence. Afterwards, a pre-sentence report was ordered as well as a psychological assessment – both are complete.

Wood expressed remorse, but Haaksman denied any direct involvement.  The Crown suggested a jail sentence of four to six months for Mr. Haaksman, followed by two years probation, and a ten year ban from owning animals, as well as a DNA sample, and a weapons prohibition. For Mr. Wood, the Crown suggested a shorter jail sentence along with a two year period of probation, a ten year ban from owning animals, along with DNA and a weapons ban. Haaksman argued for probation. Wood argued for a conditional sentence and probation.

Mr. Haaksman was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, two years’ probation, a 10-year animals prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order. Mr. Wood was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, two years’ probation, a five-year animals prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court stressed that jail was required to address the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offenders.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Ontario

Topics: animal crueltycriminaldogDrownprobationprohibitionremorsesentencing

Report a Broken Link