R. v. Elliott

R. v. Elliott

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Alan S. Elliott was the owner and person in custody and control of the cattle and that his sustained mismanagement—refusal to cull, failure to provide adequate feed, water, shelter and care, and leaving animals trapped and untreated—willfully caused and permitted unnecessary pain and suffering; the accused's poisoning theory lacked evidentiary support and did not excuse his conduct; convictions on the Criminal Code s.446(1) counts are entered and overlapping provincial ACPA charges are stayed under Kienapple.

Citation
2009 NSPC 5
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Alan S. Elliott
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Convicted on counts under Criminal Code s.446(1) for willfully causing/permitting unnecessary pain and wilful neglect; provincial Animal Cruelty Prevention Act charges stayed to avoid double jeopardy.
Legal Topics
Animal Cruelty, Neglect, Seizure of Animals, Ownership and Custody, Expert Evidence, Double Jeopardy
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Law Administrative/regulatory Law Animal Cruelty Neglect Seizure of Animals Ownership and Custody Expert Evidence +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Prosecution

Alan S. Elliott

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the accused the owner and person in custody or control of the animals?
  2. 2 Did the accused willfully cause or willfully permit unnecessary pain and suffering contrary to s.446(1) Criminal Code?
  3. 3 Did the accused willfully neglect or fail to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care contrary to s.446(1) Criminal Code?

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Alan S. Elliott was the owner and person in custody and control of the cattle and that his sustained mismanagement—refusal to cull, failure to provide adequate feed, water, shelter and care, and leaving animals trapped and untreated—willfully caused and permitted unnecessary pain and suffering; the accused's poisoning theory lacked evidentiary support and did not excuse his conduct; convictions on the Criminal Code s.446(1) counts are entered and overlapping provincial ACPA charges are stayed under Kienapple.

Court Disposition

Convicted on counts under Criminal Code s.446(1) for willfully causing/permitting unnecessary pain and wilful neglect; provincial Animal Cruelty Prevention Act charges stayed to avoid double jeopardy.

Orders

  • Convictions entered under Criminal Code s.446(1)(a) and s.446(1)(c).
  • Proceedings under the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple to avoid double jeopardy.