Recent Cases

Overview

Jillian Williamson recently defended a woman charged with multiple offences under both the Criminal Code and the Animal Protection Act (APA) relating to the alleged neglect of more than 90 cats and six domestic birds. After a detailed and evidence-based defence, the Court found her not guilty on three of the four charges, including all Criminal Code counts.

The acquittals were based on two central findings:

1. She was not the owner or person in charge of the 90 cats, as they were feral animals that roamed freely and were not under her care or control; and

2. With respect to the birds, although she was their owner, the Crown failed to prove the willfulness required for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Court entered a conviction only under the APA for the birds, a strict-liability offence, based on environmental conditions in the home.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the distinct legal standards under the Criminal Code and the APA. This case also demonstrates how precise statutory interpretation can be decisive. 

Background

Animal protection authorities laid charges after discovering:

• Over 90 cats frequenting the client’s property; and
• Six birds housed inside her home.

She was charged with:

Criminal Code s. 446(1) (two counts)

• Failing to provide adequate care, food, water, or shelter to cats;
• Failing to provide adequate care (same as the above) to birds.

Animal Protection Act (two counts)

• Causing/Permitting cats to be in distress;
• Causing/Permitting birds to be in distress.

The prosecution's theory was that the large number of cats on her property and the condition of the birds demonstrated neglect. From the outset, our client maintained that she did not own or control the cats and that she had cared for her birds to the best of her ability.

Defence Strategy and Evidence Analysis

1. Establishing No Ownership or Control Over the Cats

A key element of both the Criminal Code and the APA offences is that the accused must be:

• The owner, or
• A person in charge of the animals.
• Sexual assault examination findings;

Jillian carefully examined the evidence regarding the cats and demonstrated that:

• These cats were feral, not domesticated pets;
• They came and went freely and unpredictably;
• The client did not confine, adopt, or exercise control over them;
• Witnesses and inspection reports confirmed the absence of ownership indicia, such as vet records, city licences, or attempts to confine the animals.

The court accepted this evidence and found that she was not the owner or the person in charge of these feral animals. Without that element, both the Criminal Code and APA cat-related charges could not be made out.

2. The Birds: Criminal Code Acquittal Due to Lack of Willfulness

The Criminal Code requires a higher level of fault set out as willful neglect.

The Crown alleged that the six birds were kept in conditions amounting to distress. The defence argued that:

• Jillian’s client was not wilfully negligent;
• She had made genuine efforts to care for the birds; and
• Any adverse condition was not the result of intentional or reckless disregard.

The judge agreed that the Crown failed to prove the willful mental element required by the Criminal Code. She was therefore acquitted of the Criminal Code bird-related offence.

3. APA Liability for the Birds: Distress Caused by Environmental Factors

The APA imposes a strict-liability standard. This means that even unintentional conduct canresult in a conviction if the owner permitted or caused distress.

Evidence showed that:

• The birds were exposed to high levels of a noxious substance in the home;
• This condition resulted from the presence and accumulation of waste and debris caused by the feral cats;
• Although unintentional, the environment caused the birds to be in a state of distress.

The judge found that our client, as the owner of the birds, bore responsibility under the APA for permitting this state of distress, even though she lacked wilfulness.

Outcome

Not Guilty (3 Charges)

• Criminal Code – Cats: Not guilty;
• Animal Protection Act – Cats: Not guilty;
• Criminal Code – Birds: Not guilty.

Guilty (1 Charge)

• Animal Protection Act – Birds: Guilty of permitting or causing distress (strict-liability standard).

Overall, our client was acquitted of the most serious allegations, including all Criminal Code offences.

Key Insights

• Ownership and control are essential elements in both Criminal Code (for certain charges) and APA prosecutions involving animals. Where animals are feral or free-roaming, liability may not attach.
• Mental state matters. The Criminal Code requires wilfulness, while the APA operates on strict-liability principles.
• Environmental factors can create APA liability, even if unintentional, when they result in animal distress.
• Thorough evidence review and statutory interpretation can significantly change the outcome of a case.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates the impact of a strategic and evidence-driven defence. By focusing on the legal requirements of ownership, control, and mental intent, we were able to secure acquittals on the majority of the charges, particularly the more serious Criminal Code offences.

If you or someone you know is facing allegations under the Criminal Code or the Animal Protection Act, early legal representation is crucial. A strong defence begins with a clear understanding of the statutory elements and a rigorous review of the evidence.