R. v. Savova (D.), (2012) 541 A.R. 85 (PC)

• Judge: Anderson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 30, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 541 A.R. 85 (PC);2012 ABPC 121

R. v. Savova (D.) (2012), 541 A.R. 85 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MY.091

Her Majesty the Queen v. Dimitrina Savova (110342060P1; 2012 ABPC 121)

Indexed As: R. v. Savova (D.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Anderson, P.C.J.

April 30, 2012.

Summary:

Savova was charged with causing distress to an animal (Animal Protection Act, s. 2(1)) and failing to provide an animal with adequate care (s. 2.1(b)). The Crown and the defence made a joint proposal for a one year "common law peace bond" with conditions that would restrict pet ownership and require Savova to attend for psychiatric counselling or treatment. Savova advised that she did not want to attend for psychiatric treatment but would do so if it were ordered.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a common law peace bond in provincial regulatory matters that even if jurisdiction existed, a peace bond would not be appropriate.

Animals - Topic 7242

Offences - Penalties - Jurisdiction - Savova was charged with one count of causing distress to an animal (Animal Protection Act, s. 2(1)) and failing to provide an animal with adequate care (s. 2.1(b)) - The Crown and the defence made a joint proposal for a one year "common law peace bond" with conditions that would restrict pet ownership and require Savova to attend for psychiatric counselling or treatment - The Alberta Provincial Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a common law peace bond in provincial regulatory matters - Section 3 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act (POPA) allowed for the importation of summary Criminal Code procedures into the prosecution of regulatory matters - However, a common law peace bond was not a codified Code procedure - It was the antithesis of one - The POPA had no application - Further, when a court issued a peace bond in the Provincial Court, whether at common law or under s. 810 of the Code, the form that it took was a Form 32 Recognizance - Short of the court making up a form, there were no other forms that fit - This meant that the subject of the order became exposed to criminal sanctions despite not having faced a criminal allegation in the first place - An accused, once a Form 32 recognizance was entered into, faced criminal jeopardy should there be a breach of conditions - Using the threat of criminal sanction to curb non-criminal behaviour, had no place in the law - The Provincial Court was a statutory court - It did not have a plenary jurisdiction - It had the powers conferred by statute and to a limited extent, common law powers could be inferred to allow the court to control its processes - There was no basis to find the power to make the order sought - See paragraphs 8 to 17.

Courts - Topic 8409.1

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - Peace bonds - [See Animals - Topic 7242 ].

Trials - Topic 1061

Summary convictions - Jurisdiction - General - [See Animals - Topic 7242 ].

Trials - Topic 1363

Summary convictions - Punishments - Peace bond - [See Animals - Topic 7242 ].

Trials - Topic 1363

Summary convictions - Punishments - Peace bond - Savova thought her cat was pregnant and went to a veterinarian office to get different cat food - She was told that the cat was ill and required surgery or, alternatively, should be euthanised - She wanted a second opinion and advised that she would take it to a different clinic, identifying which one - The next day, the first veterinarian office contacted the second and learned that the cat had not been taken in - The office phoned the Humane Society and Savova was notified that she had to act quickly - Savova brought the cat back to the first office promptly and agreed to pay for the surgery - The cat died on the operating table - Savova, who spoke limited English, made angry comments to the veterinarian staff and later to animal protection staff, accusing them of having murdered her cat and gouging her - Savova was charged with causing distress to an animal (Animal Protection Act, s. 2(1)) and failing to provide an animal with adequate care (s. 2.1(b)) - The Crown and the defence made a joint proposal for a one year "common law peace bond" with conditions that would restrict pet ownership and require Savova to attend for psychiatric counselling or treatment - Savova did not want to attend for psychiatric treatment, but would do so if she was ordered - The Alberta Provincial Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a common law peace bond and, if it had jurisdiction, it would not make such an order - It was not proper to impose a rehabilitative term that was resisted - The order sought concerning treatment had no apparent connection to the original alleged delict and appeared to be a high handed response to the accused's rude emotional outbursts - If a Form 32 recognizance order was entered into, the potential consequences would be grossly unfair - It would expose Savova to criminal charges for non-compliance - If she sought employment involving vulnerable persons, she would have to explain how a court came to find that she required psychiatric treatment - If she travelled, she faced the angst of wondering what a foreign jurisdiction might decide about her entry knowing that she was under an order to seek psychiatric treatment - See paragraphs 18 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wells (D.R.) (2012), 531 A.R. 387; 2012 ABQB 77, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Taylor, [2001] B.C.J. No. 1653 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 9].

R. v. Whittle, 2005 BCPC 610, dist. [para. 9].

Broomes v. R. (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 220 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Port Alberni (City) v. Smillie, 2007 BCPC 180, dist. [para. 16].

R. v. Doyle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 270, refd to. [para. 17].

Cunningham v. Lilles et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; 399 N.R. 326; 283 B.C.A.C. 280; 480 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Rogers, 1990 CanLII 432 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ruby, Clayton C., Not So Fast: The Unintended Consequences of Accepting a Peace Bond, vol. 32, No. 7, p. 55 [para. 22].

Counsel:

Christian Lim, for the Crown;

N. Rodych (Student Legal Services), agent for the accused.

This matter was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, by Anderson, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 30, 2012.