R. v. Menard (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 458 (Que. C.A.)

This is an appeal to the Superior Court regarding a respondent who ran a business which consisted of catching and putting to death stray, unclaimed animals.  He was  acquitted of having wilfully caused unnecessary pain and suffering to such animals. The charge had been laid because of the method he used to kill the animals;  a forced ingestion of carbon monoxide.

The Crown appealed and submitted that the Superior Court Judge erred in :

a) his interpretation of the words “pain and suffering”

b) in deciding that “pain and suffering” inflicted to animals had to be substantial in order to become illegal and

c) in his interpretation of the concept of necessity as a defence.

The appeal was allowed;  Conviction restored.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Quebec

Topics: Criminal Codecrueltyinjurymalicious injurymistreatmentnecessitypainpropertysufferingtortsunnecessary pain

Report a Broken Link