R. v. MacKinnon (G.), 2014 ABPC 150

• Judge: Barley, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 10, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: 2014 ABPC 150;(2014), 592 A.R. 200 (PC)

R. v. MacKinnon (G.) (2014), 592 A.R. 200 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. JL.073

Her Majesty the Queen v. Grant MacKinnon (121016174P1; 2014 ABPC 150)

Indexed As: R. v. MacKinnon (G.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Barley, P.C.J.

July 10, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with causing a horse to be in distress, contrary to s. 2(1) of the Animal Protection Act. The accused was not a veterinarian.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused not guilty. Alberta legislation did not forbid the practice of equine dentistry by a person with the accused's training. While the court found that the horse was in distress and the distress was caused by the accused's actions in removing too much from some of the horse's incisor teeth, the action was carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of animal care, viewed objectively.

Animals - Topic 7016

Offences - Defences - Reasonable and generally accepted practices - [See Animals - Topic 7044 ].

Animals - Topic 7044

Offences - Particular offences - Causing or permitting an animal to be in distress - The accused was charged with causing a horse to be in distress, contrary to s. 2(1) of the Animal Protection Act - The accused was not a veterinarian - The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused not guilty - Alberta legislation did not forbid the practice of equine dentistry by a person with the accused's training, and so the fact that he did so was not evidence of a lack of care - While the horse was in distress and the distress was caused by the accused's actions in removing too much from some of the horse's incisor teeth, the action was carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of animal care, viewed objectively.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Smithers, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506; 15 N.R. 287, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Maybin (M.L.) et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 30; 430 N.R. 33; 321 B.C.A.C. 83; 547 W.A.C. 83; 2012 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Ryan (P.) (2006), 286 Sask.R. 272; 2006 SKPC 80, dist. [para. 51].

British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association v. Bishop, [2006] B.C.T.C. 556; 2006 BCSC 556, dist. [para. 54].

Nebraska (Department of Health) v. Jeffrey, 247 Neb. 100; 525 N.W.(2d) 193, dist. [para. 55].

Counsel:

Lori Chambers, for the Crown;

Pawel Milczarek, for the Defence.

This case was heard by Barley, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on July 10, 2014.