R v Kolak, 2004 YKTC 11

This is a sentencing hearing for the accused, Kolak, who plead guilty to one count of section 119 of the Animal Control Bylaw. One of Kolak’s ten dogs was found to be so severely malnourished that it had to be put down. The Crown sought the voluntary penalty of a $250 fine and a probation order requiring Kolak to not be in possession or care of dogs for a period of 18 months.

The court found that Kolak’s neglect was unintentional and that her financial means were somewhat limited. The court ordered that Kolak pay a fine of $100 and imposed 18-months probation with a prohibition on possessing or caring for dogs. She was granted two months to pay the fine.

The JP went on to state that dogs being kept for pets are supposed to have a quality of life that goes beyond being fed and watered once a day, or even being walked occasionally. They have to have positive interaction. If there had been some interaction between Kolak and the dog, she would have recognized the dog was not healthy and, hopefully, would have pursued some positive action in order to ensure that the dog did not reach the stage that it did.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Yukon

Topics: Animal Control Bylawcompanion animalsdogeuthanasiafineguiltymalnourishedneglectnegligencepetsprobationquality of lifesentencing

Report a Broken Link