R. v . MacDonald

Parties

Procedural Posture

Summary Conviction Animal Protection Act (provincial Regulatory/public Welfare) / Trial Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the Crown proved the actus reus of permitting an animal to be in distress contrary to s.21(2) of the Animal Protection Act beyond a reasonable doubt
2. 2 Whether the Crown proved the actus reus of failing to provide adequate medical attention when an animal was ill contrary to s.22(b) of the Animal Protection Act beyond a reasonable doubt
3. 3 Whether the defendant acted with knowledge or wilful blindness to the animal's condition and whether any due diligence defence would apply

Ratio Decidendi

Crown failed to prove actus reus of either offence beyond a reasonable doubt: evidence showed defendant lacked knowledge or wilful blindness of the intestinal foreign body and did not deprive the dog of adequate care; expert pathology and credibly undermined veterinary complaint established that symptoms were consistent with age-related decline and not necessarily an emergency, therefore defendant was not guilty of permitting distress or failing to provide adequate medical attention.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on both charges (ss.21(2) and 22(b) Animal Protection Act)

Orders

• Sarah MacDonald acquitted of charges contrary to s.21(2) and s.22(b) of the Animal Protection Act (Nova Scotia)
• No further orders