Mr. Stich appealed a prohibition order under s. 447.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code whereby he was prohibited from owning, having the custody or control of, or residing in the same premises as an animal or a bird.
There were some some post-sentencing facts outlined in the submissions on the appeal that the Court thought might well form the basis for modifying the terms of the prohibition imposed. These included permitting proposed co-residency with the appellant’s mother to further his rehabilitation following his completion of a residential addiction treatment program. His mother had a dog and a cat or cats.
The Court did not agree with the appellant’s submission that counsels’ representations were sufficient to support a finding that the prohibition imposed was demonstrably unfit in the circumstances. The Court stated that its jurisdiction in these circumstances is limited to intervening in the event that fresh evidence, properly admitted on the appeal, demonstrates the unfitness of a comprehensive absolute prohibition against residing in the same premises as an animal or bird. Therefore, stating that if the appellant wished to proceed he could apply for the admission of fresh evidence and gave the appellant 30 days to do so.
Source: Case Law
Jurisdiction: British Columbia