R. v. Barr (M.A.B.), (1982) 49 A.R. 342 (PC)

• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 14, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 49 A.R. 342 (PC)

R. v. Barr (M.A.B.) (1982), 49 A.R. 342 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Barr (M.A.B.)

Indexed As: R. v. Barr (M.A.B.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Oliver, A.C.J.

January 14, 1982.

Summary:

The accused was charged with injuring a dog kept for a lawful purpose. The accused was caught in the act of burglary by a police officer with a police dog. The accused ran and refused to stop, so the officer ordered the dog to stop him. As the dog attacked, the accused struck and severely injured him with an iron bar, forcing the dog to desist. The accused failed to strike a second dog, which overcame the accused.

The Alberta Provincial Court convicted the accused after finding that the use of the dog by the police was reasonable and the accused therefore had no justification in resisting arrest by the dog. The courts discussed the use of attack dogs and held that such a dog is a weapon of the police and not part of a man-dog unit.

Criminal Law - Topic 2365

Wilful acts respecting property - Animals - Injuring animals - Police attack dog - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 401(a) - The accused was found committing a burglary by a police officer and a police dog - The accused ran and refused to stop, so the officer ordered the dog to stop him - The accused struck the dog with an iron bar, severely injuring him - The Alberta Provincial Court convicted the accused of injuring the dog after finding that use of the dog in making the arrest was reasonable and the accused therefore had no justification in resisting.

Police - Topic 3078

Powers - Arrest - Attack dogs - Use of - The Alberta Provincial Court held that a police officer was justified in using a police dog to stop an escaping burglar - The court discussed the use of police dogs in making arrests and held that the dog is a weapon of the police and cannot be considered part of a man-dog unit - As such, an attack dog must be used reasonably in the same way that a firearm must be in making arrests.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Deschamps (1978), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 45, appld. [para. 18].

R. v. Hastings, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 749, appld. [para. 36].

Goff v. Peasley, 78 C.C.C. 237, appld. [para. 37].

R. v. Smith, 13 C.C.C. 326, consd. [para. 47].

Maratzear v. C.P.R., 37 C.C.C. 297, consd. [para. 47].

Vignitch v. Bond, 50 C.C.C. 273, consd. [para. 47].

R. v. Purvis, 51 C.C.C. 273, consd. [para. 47].

Merin v. Ross, 60 C.C.C. 18, consd. [para. 47].

R. v. Mitchell, 69 C.C.C. 406, consd. [para. 47].

Savard v. R., 85 C.C.C. 254, consd. [para. 47].

Robertson and Robertson v. Joyce, 92 C.C.C. 382, consd. [para. 47].

A.G. Canada v. Sanford, 118 C.C.C. 93, consd. [para. 47].

Priestman v. Colangelo, 124 C.C.C. 1, consd. [para. 47].

Woodward v. Begbie, 132 C.C.C. 145, consd. [para. 47].

Beim v. Goyer, [1966] 4 C.C.C. 9, consd. [para. 47].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] All E.R. 30, appld. [para. 64].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski, [1976] 2 All E.R. 142, appld. [para. 64].

R. v. Ninos, [1964] 1 C.C.C. 326 (N.S.C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 25(1), sect. 25(3) [para. 19]; sect. 25(4) [paras. 19, 42]; sect. 26 [para. 21]; sect. 34(1) [para. 3]; sect. 34(2) [para. 31]; sect. 386(2) [paras. 24, 26]; sect. 387(3) [para. 25]; sect. 401(a) [para. 17]; sect. 450 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (12th Ed.), p. 240 [para. 38].

Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada (8th Ed.), pp. 9-3, 9-4 [para. 33].

Doubilet, David M., (1968), 14 McGill L.J. 293, 311 [para. 49].

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law [para. 35].

McDonald, Bruce C., Use of Force by Police to Effect Lawful Arrest (1966-67), 9 Crim. L.Q. 435, 466 [para. 49].

Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) [para. 34].

Salmond on Torts (14th Ed.) p. 184 [para. 39].

Counsel:

P. Knoll, for the Crown;

D. Armstrong, for the defence.

This case was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before Oliver, A.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 14, 1982: