R. v. Loerzel (R.) et al., 2007 SKCA 107

• Judge: Klebuc, C.J.S., Jackson and Richards, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 28, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2007 SKCA 107;(2007), 304 Sask.R. 141 (CA)

R. v. Loerzel (R.) (2007), 304 Sask.R. 141 (CA);

      413 W.A.C. 141

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.020

Ronald Loerzel, Donald Loerzel and Trad Industries Ltd. (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 1295; 2007 SKCA 107)

Indexed As: R. v. Loerzel (R.) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Klebuc, C.J.S., Jackson and Richards, JJ.A.

October 4, 2007.

Summary:

The accused operated an elk farm. They were each convicted of one count of violating s. 4 of the Animal Protection Act for causing or permitting elk to be in distress. A summary conviction appeal court dismissed their appeal. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Animals - Topic 7006

Offences - General - Strict liability offences - The accused operated an elk farm - They were each convicted of one count of violating s. 4 of the Animal Protection Act for causing or permitting elk to be in distress - They appealed, asserting that s. 4 created a mens rea offence and that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in finding that it was a strict liability offence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Section 4 created a public welfare offence that was prima facie a matter of strict liability - The section did not include words such as "willfully", "with intent", "knowingly" or "intentionally" that would import a mens rea requirement - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Animals - Topic 7044

Offences - Particular offences - Causing or permitting an animal to be in distress - [See Animals - Topic 7006 ].

Animals - Topic 7044

Offences - Particular offences - Causing or permitting an animal to be in distress - The accused were elk farmers - Authorities observed a high number of thin animals and some severely thin animals - One elk was found to have died from starvation - The accused were each convicted of one count of violating s. 4 of the Animal Protection Act for causing or permitting elk to be in distress - Their summary conviction appeal was dismissed - On appeal, they argued that they had acted with due diligence in their efforts to cope with drought and the need for additional feed including attempting to have money released from trust so that they could purchase feed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The accused had not raised a question of law regarding due diligence - There was ample evidence before the summary conviction appeal judge to support the conviction - At a minimum, as the summary conviction appeal judge pointed out, the accused could have sought assistance from authorities or could have commenced legal proceedings to free up money for purchasing feed - See paragraphs 16 to 21.

Animals - Topic 7250

Offences - Penalties - Causing or permitting an animal to be in distress - The accused operated an elk farm - They were each convicted of one count of violating s. 4 of the Animal Protection Act for causing or permitting elk to be in distress and were fined $1,500 each - They appealed, asserting that the conduct of the animal protection authorities and government personnel in one of the accused's living quarters, the treatment of the elk during their seizure and the impact of the events on the accused's reputation and ability to earn a livelihood constituted cruel and unusual punishment - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The only punishment imposed by the state in this case was a fine for each accused - The alleged conduct of officials was not something that could be considered within the context of a cruel and unusual punishment analysis under s. 12 of the Charter - See paragraphs 26 and 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 3807

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - General - Punishment - Meaning of - [See Animals - Topic 7250 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Agpro Grain Inc. and Bielka (1996), 142 Sask.R. 37 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Komarnicki (1991), 116 A.R. 268 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 14].

Van Dorgen et al. v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, [2005] B.C.T.C. Uned. 225; 2005 BCSC 548, dist. [para. 15].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Animal Protection Act, S.S. 1999, c. A-21.1, sect. 4 [para. 12].

Counsel:

Ronald Loerzel, in person on his own behalf, as well as Donald Loerzel's behalf;

Beverly Klatt, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 28, 2007, by Klebuc, C.J.S., Jackson and Richards, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Richards, J.A., delivered the following written reasons for judgment for the court on October 4, 2007.