Accused was charged with 5 counts under section 2(1) of the Animal Protection Act and under section 446(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for wilfully causing or permitting puppies to be or continue to be in distress and that he wilfully caused them unnecessary suffering. The issue before the Court was whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the accused who attempted to dispose of the five puppies down an outhouse toilet.
The Court held that the only reasonable inference that could be drawn was that it was the accused who attempted to dispose of the puppies in a manner which caused them unnecessary suffering. Accordingly the Court convicted the accused of the Criminal Code offences and stayed the charges under the Animal Protection Act on the Kienapple principle.
Source: Case Law