R v Muhlbah, 2011 ABQB 9

Appeal by the Crown from the acquittal of the accused of a charge for permitting cattle to be in distress contrary to section 2(1) of the Animal Protection Act. On appeal, the Crown argued that the Trial Judge misinterpreted the Act by requiring evidence of dehydration, rather than evidence of distress. The Court held that the Trial Judge was reasonable to infer that the cattle were not in distress due to a deprivation of water by finding that no evidence was given showing dehydration of the cattle.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Alberta

Topics: agriculturecattlecustomary farm practicesdefencedeprivation of adequate waterdistressdue diligencegenerally acceptedinferencereasonablestrict liability

Report a Broken Link