R. v. Jackson

Expert evidence and photographs proved the birds were in distress as defined by s.2(2); even if the accused did not cause the initial condition, as the owner/person in charge he permitted the distress by failing to take steps to relieve it, satisfying s.21(2) and warranting conviction on that count while acquitting on s.21(1) due to reasonable doubt as to causation.

Citation: 2011 NSPC 108
Parties: Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: James Jackson
Court: Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 2 June 2011
Procedural Posture: Criminal (animal Protection Act) / Oral Decision on Guilt (provincial Court)
Outcome: Guilty on count 2 (s.21(2)); Not guilty on count 1 (s.21(1))
Legal Topics: Animal Neglect, Animal Protection Act S.2(2) Definition of Distress, S.21(1) Causing Animals to Be in Distress, S.21(2) Permitting Animals to Be in Distress, Due Diligence/mistake of Fact Defence
Source Language: English

Criminal Law Animal Welfare/animal Protection Animal Neglect Animal Protection Act S.2(2) Definition of Distress S.21(1) Causing Animals to Be in Distress S.21(2) Permitting Animals to Be in Distress Due Diligence/mistake of Fact Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

James Jackson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (animal Protection Act) / Oral Decision on Guilt (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the accused caused animals to be in distress contrary to s.21(1)
2 Whether the accused as owner or person in charge permitted animals to be in distress contrary to s.21(2)
3 Whether the accused established a due diligence or mistake of fact defence

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Guilty on count 2 (s.21(2)); Not guilty on count 1 (s.21(1))