The Crown appealed the acquittal of the Respondent, Sunduk, on the charge that contrary to section 445(a) of the Criminal Code he wilfully and without lawful cause killed a dog that was kept for a lawful purpose and was the property of Kirby Mirva.
The trial judge found that the dog, Brew, was a stray at the time he was shot. At that particular time, there was no one exercising control over Brew, and on that basis alone, the court concluded that he was a stray.
However, here, the Court found that there was nothing in s. 445(a) of the Criminal Code that limits its protection only to animals that never stray from their keepers. It was undisputed evidence that Brew was a domestic pet of the Mirva family.
Based on the foregoing, the Court found that the learned trial judge erred in law in finding that Brew was a stray and not allowed the protection afforded by s. 445(a) of the Criminal Code. Section 445(a) does not require that the animal always be within the immediate direct care and control of its keeper. The only requirement is that the animal be kept for a lawful purpose.
Therefore, setting aside the acquittal and entering a guilty verdict.
Source: Case Law