R v Nikkel, [2013] MJ No 290 (MBQB)

This is an appeal from a conviction of both appellants, Nikkel and Ragnanan, on 4 different counts. The counts include:

  1. being a person who has ownership, possession or control of an animal did unlawfully contravene Section 2(1)(d)(iii) of The Animal Care Act, by confining ten dogs to an enclosure with inadequate ventilation so as to significantly impair the animals health or wellbeing, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 34(1) of The Animal Care Act.
  2. being a person who has ownership, possession or control of an animal did unlawfully contravene Section 2(1)(d)(iii) of The Animal Care Act by confining twenty-two dogs to an enclosure with inadequate ventilation so as to significantly impair the animals health or wellbeing, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 34(1) of The Animal Care Act.
  3. unlawfully contravene Section 5(d)(iii) of The Animal Care Regulation by the confinement of five dogs where there is a high risk of injury or distress, by or due to the physical characteristics of the place of confinement specifically inadequate lighting and unsanitary conditions, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 34(1) of The Animal Care Act.
  4. unlawfully contravene Section 5(c)(i) of The Animal Care Regulation by the confinement of two dogs in a facility that contains items or debris that constitute a hazard likely to injure the animal, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 34(1) of The Animal Care Act.

Costs and surcharges were imposed on both appellants and in addition, the trial judge imposed a five-year prohibition against the ownership, possession or control of dogs as against both Nikkel and Ragnanan. Both appealed their convictions and sentences.

The court went through each argument thoroughly and concluded that the appellants’ appeals were dismissed.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Manitoba

Topics: appealconfinedistressdogsenclosurehealthinjuryownerunsanitaryventilation

Report a Broken Link