Levy v. His Majesty the King, 2023 NSSC 23

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Levy v. His Majesty the King , 2023 NSSC 23 Date: 20230119 Docket: CA No. 511341 Registry: Kentville Between: Brian Merrill Levy Appellant v. His Majesty the King Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Gail L. Gatchalian Heard: September 28, 2022, in Kentville, Nova Scotia Counsel Brian Merrill Levy, the Appellant Brian Cox, for the Respondent By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] In a decision delivered orally on November 5, 2021, the Honourable Judge Marc C. Chisholm of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court convicted Brian Levy of: (

a) violating standards of care prescribed by the Standards of Care for Cats and Dogs Regulations , N.S. Reg 182/2014 , concerning shelter height, tethering time and tether length, thereby permitting dogs to be in distress, contrary to s.21(2) of the Animal Protection Act , S.N.S. 2008, c.33 ; and (

b) failing to provide a puppy with adequate medical attention when it was wounded or ill, contrary to s.22(

b) of the Act . [ 2 ] In sentencing Mr. Levy, Judge Chisholm imposed a fine for each offence as well as a five-year conditional prohibition order against Mr. Levy having custody, care or control of animals for a period of five years, except for two dogs for the purpose of companionship. [ 3 ] Mr. Levy has appealed his conviction and the prohibition order. [ 4 ] In his Factum and in oral argument, Mr.

Levy admitted that he violated the regulatory standards prescribing minimum shelter height, maximum tethering time and minimum tether length, but questioned the validity of the regulations themselves, given that there was no evidence of actual distress. Mr. Levy did not challenge the validity of regulations at trial. He did not properly challenge their validity in this appeal. His argument is, essentially, that he does not agree with the Regulations . His appeal of his conviction for breaching the Regulations on the ground that the Regulations are invalid is dismissed. [ 5 ] Mr.

Levy appears to raise one issue of fact concerning his conviction for breaching the Regulations , and that is whether the trial judge erred in rejecting his due diligence defence with respect to minimum tether length. I will address this issue in my decision. [ 6 ] Mr. Levy’s appeal of his conviction under s.22(

b) of the Act is also based on alleged errors of fact. [ 7 ] The Crown assumed, as will I, that Mr. Levy’s grounds of appeal are as follows: (

a) that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice; and (

b) that the trial judge rendered an unreasonable verdict or a verdict that cannot be supported by the evidence. [ 8 ] With respect to the conviction for failing to ensure that the tethers he used met the minimum length requirement, Mr. Levy says that he had corrected the length of some tethers, and that he planned to correct the length of other tethers once the ground thawed and he was able to drive new pivots. [ 9 ] With respect to the conviction for failing to provide adequate medical care to the puppy, Mr. Levy says that:

(

a) the puppy healed without surgery, showing that it did not need medical attention; (

b) the trial judge accepted the opinion of a veterinarian that the puppy required medical attention for its injuries when the veterinarianwas mistaken about the timing of the injuries; (

c) Mr. Levy’s evidence that dog saliva has antibacterial, cleansing and healing properties should have been preferred over theevidence of the two veterinarians called by the Crown; and (

d) Mr. Levy was exercising due diligence by monitoring the puppy’s wounds. [10] If Mr. Levy’s conviction depended on a misapprehension of the evidence, it follows that he did not receive a fair trial and wasthe victim of a miscarriage of justice. There is a stringent test for finding a misapprehension of evidence resulting in a miscarriage ofjustice: 1. First, the misapprehension of evidence must go to the substance of the decision rather than to the details of it, and it must bematerial rather than peripheral to the reasoning; and 2.

Second, the errors must play an essential part not just in the narrative of the judgment but in the reasoning process resultingin the conviction. See R. v. Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80, citing R. v. Morrisey, (1995) (ON CA), 97 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.); and see R. v.Deviller, 2005 NSCA 71 at paras.10-12 [11] A misapprehension of evidence may consist of: • a failure to consider evidence relevant to material issue, • a mistake as to the substance of the evidence, or • a failure to give proper effect to evidence.

See Deviller, supra at para.10 [12] Absent an error of law or a miscarriage of justice, the test that I must apply, sitting as a

Summary Conviction Appeal Court, iswhether the findings of Judge Chisholm are unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence. I am entitled to review the evidence attrial, re-examine and re-weigh it, but only for the purpose of determining whether it is reasonably capable of supporting the conclusionsreached by Judge Chisholm. If it is, I am not entitled to substitute my view of the evidence for that of the trial judge. See R. v. Yebes, (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168 at para.23; R. v. Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15 at paras.36; and R. v.

Nickerson, 1999 NSCA 168, [1999] N.S.J. 210 (NSCA) at para.6. [13] In order to determine whether Judge Chisholm misapprehended the evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, or whetherhe rendered an unreasonable verdict or a verdict that cannot be supported by the evidence, I will consider, (

a) in relation to Mr. Levy’sdue diligence defence concerning tether length and (

b) in relation to his conviction for failing to provide adequate medical attention tothe puppy: 1. the reasons of Judge Chisholm; 2. whether he misapprehended the evidence as alleged by Mr. Levy; 3. if so, whether the error played an essential

part in the reasoning process resulting in the conviction; 4. if not, whether the evidence is reasonably capable of supporting the conviction. [14] With respect to Mr. Levy’s appeal of the sentence, the appropriate standard of review is one of deference. I must examine thedecision and consider whether Judge Chisholm: • imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence, or • made an error in principle that had an impact on the sentence by, for example: o making an error of law, o failing to consider a relevant factor, or o erroneously considering an aggravating or mitigating factor. R. v.

Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paras.25-29 Tether Length [15] Under s.8(3) of the Regulations, an animal’s owner or caretaker must ensure that the minimum length of a tether used on an

animal is the greater of five metres and five times the length of the animal. Under s.21(2) of the Act , no owner of an animal or person in charge of an animal shall permit the animal to be in distress. Under s.2(2)(

f) of the Act , an animal is in distress, for the purpose of the Act , where the animal is kept in conditions that contravene the standards of care prescribed by the Regulations . [ 16 ] Judge Chisholm found Mr. Levy guilty of failing to ensure that the tethers he used for his dogs met the minimum required length. Mr.

Levy was therefore deemed to have permitted the animal to be in distress, contrary to s.21(2) of the Act . [ 17 ] Under s.21(3) of the Act , the owner of an animal or the person in charge of an animal does not permit the animal to be in distress if the owner or person in charge takes immediate appropriate steps to relieve the distress. [ 18 ] In his decision, Judge Chisholm directly addressed Mr. Levy’s due diligence defence and rejected it for the following reasons: • The evidence of Mr.

Levy was that he became aware of the minimum tether length requirement in December of 2018. • There was no evidence of the state of the ground or the state of the weather during that time. • There was no evidence of any attempt by Mr. Levy to drive in a new pivot at any time before the ground might have been frozen, once he became aware that the tethers were too short. • There was no evidence as to what other options he might have considered. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.56-57. [ 19 ] In cross-examination at trial, Mr.

Levy conceded that he was aware, by December 17, 2018, that some of the tethers were too short, and that he did not correct the situation. Mr. Levy testified as follows: “… I was looking towards making the changes in spring, but I didn’t really consider that this was a critical element. My dogs … have much more area than the average dog ever gets to travel in”: Transcript, September 3, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.151-153. [ 20 ] Judge Chisholm reviewed Mr.

Levy’s explanation for why he had not corrected his violation of the Regulations prescribing minimum tether length: … He stated that it wasn’t just a matter of making the chains longer if he was to comply. At their present length, there was no overlap of the dogs’ areas, and therefore no risk of entanglement of chains of individual dogs. In order to lengthen the chains and not to have overlap of the areas of the dogs, it would require driving new pivots, and it would be difficult to do so during the winter months with the frozen ground, and he said he planned to wait until spring to make any such changes.

Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, p.35 [ 21 ] Judge Chisholm did not misapprehend the evidence relevant to Mr. Levy’s assertion that he acted with due diligence to correct his violation of the regulatory requirement that, if he was going to use tethers, they had to be a certain minimum length. Judge Chisholm did not fail to consider evidence relevant to this issue, make a mistake as to the substance of the evidence, or fail to give proper effect to evidence. He explicitly considered Mr.

Levy’s evidence that he planned to correct his violation in the spring, and rejected his explanation as demonstrating due diligence. In addition, the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting Judge Chisholm’s conclusion that Mr. Levy had not exercised due diligence in correcting his violation of the Regulations regarding tether length. Adequate Medical Care: The Reasons of Judge Chisholm [ 22 ] Under s.22(

b) of the Act , a person who owns or is in charge of an animal must provide the animal with adequate medical attention when the animal is wounded or ill. [ 23 ] In coming to his conclusion that the Crown had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Levy had failed to provide the puppy with adequate medical attention when it was wounded or ill, Judge Chisholm reviewed the evidence of: • Natasha Poirier • Special Constable Kelly Eveleigh of the SPCA • Veterinarian Dr. Carla MacKenzie • Veterinarian Dr. Allison Pollard • Mrs. Levy • Mr. Levy Natasha Poirier [ 24 ] Judge Chisholm summarized the evidence of Ms. Poirier as follows:

• She visited Mr. Levy’s property on December 15, 2018, in response to an online ad offering puppies for sale. • While there, she observed one puppy bleeding from its leg. • She described the wound as a gash. • She said that the puppy was walking around bleeding. • She said there was blood on the snow and that there was a lot of blood. • After leaving Mr. Levy’s property, she contacted the SPCA and made a complaint.

Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, p.59 Special Constable Kelly Eveleigh [ 25 ] Judge Chisholm summarized the evidence of Special Constable Kelly Eveleigh as follows: • On December 17, she observed the puppy with two gashes on its leg. • She described both gashes as red and inflamed. • It was her opinion in that the puppy required medical attention. • She seized the puppy, left notice of the seizure on Mr. Levy’s door, and took the dog to Dr. MacKenzie. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, p.60 Dr. Carla MacKenzie [ 26 ] Judge Chisholm noted that he had qualified Dr.

MacKenzie as an expert in the field of veterinary medicine. He noted that Dr. MacKenzie had been practicing since 1994. He summarized Dr.

MacKenzie's evidence as follows: • She observed the puppy on December 17, 2018. • The puppy’s left front leg was noticeably swollen. • The swelling was severe, limited to the area of the cuts. • There were two cuts. • The first cut was on the upper front wrist and measured 3 1/2 centimeters in length. • The second cut was over the dewclaw and measured 3 centimeters in length. • Both cuts were deep, almost to the bone. • Based upon the puppy’s reaction, the area of the cuts seemed tender and painful. • The puppy favoured that leg and limped. • The puppy did not have a fever. • The puppy’s weight was good. • In her opinion: o The two cuts and inflammation caused the swelling. o The cuts were infected. o The puppy’s body was not succeeding in healing itself. o The cuts had existed for a period of at least a week. o The puppy could not heal without treatment. o The delay in getting treatment complicated the puppy’s care. o Without treatment, the dog could have developed sepsis and died. • She provided the puppy antibiotics and recommended surgery to close the wounds.

Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.60-61 Dr. Pollard

[ 27 ] Judge Chisholm noted that he had also qualified Dr. Pollard as an expert in the field of veterinary medicine. He noted that Dr. Pollard had been practicing for many years. He summarized Dr. Pollard’s evidence as follows: • She saw the puppy two days after the puppy was seen by Dr.

MacKenzie. • She had been told that the puppy had been given antibiotics and an anti-inflammatory medication. • The wounds on the puppy’s forearm were penetrating wounds. • The puppy had no fever or limp at that time. • Based on the puppy's reaction, the area of the cuts appeared sore and a bit swollen. • She ordered the continuation of the medications prescribed by Dr. MacKenzie. • She was of the opinion that the cuts required veterinarian intervention and treatment. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.62-63 [ 28 ] Judge Chisholm noted that Mr.

Levy asked both veterinarians whether a dog’s saliva contained an antibiotic. Neither expert agreed with that suggestion. In fact, Dr. Pollard stated that the puppy’s mouth contained bacteria that could cause severe infection. See Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, p.63. Mrs. Levy [ 29 ] Judge Chisholm summarized the evidence of Mrs. Levy, Mr. Levy’s spouse, as follows: • She did not see the injuries. • Mr. Levy told her that the cut was fairly serious, but that taking it to a vet would be a waste of money. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, p.63 Mr.

Levy [ 30 ] Judge Chisholm summarized the evidence of Mr. Levy as follows: • He noticed the injury to the puppy on Saturday, December 15, 2018. • He agreed that it was a nasty cut. • He kept an eye on it, it stopped bleeding, and he continued to keep an eye on it. • He left the cuts open, believing that was preferable for healing. • He observed the puppy licking the wounds and believed that the puppy’s saliva contained an antibiotic. • On December the 16th, he sought the opinion of his close friend, Paula Newell, as to whether the puppy should be taken to a vet. Ms.

Newell had worked at a puppy mill and had experience. She did not believe that the puppy needed to be taken to a vet. • The puppy appeared to be playing normally at that time. • It would have cost two to three times the normal fee to contact a vet on the weekend. • He did not believe that the puppy was in need of emergency care. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.63-64 [ 31 ] Judge Chisholm stated that Ms. Newell also testified, and confirmed the discussion with Mr.

Levy about the puppy’s injury: Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, p.64. [ 32 ] Judge Chisholm also described photographs introduced by the Crown, which depicted two significant wounds to the puppy’s leg: Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, pp.61-62 of the Appeal Book. [ 33 ] After summarizing the evidence, Judge Chisholm concluded as follows: • He accepted the evidence of Dr. MacKenzie and Dr.

Pollard that the injuries to the puppy would not have healed without medical intervention, and that without medical treatment, the puppy could have died and the cuts were not getting better. • By December 17 th , when the puppy was seen by Dr. MacKenzie, the swelling and inflammation was obvious. The swelling in the area of the cuts was severe. • Based on the evidence, he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Levy’s watching and waiting approach was not adequate medical attention. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.64-65

[ 34 ] Judge Chisholm also concluded that Mr. Levy had not established a defence of due diligence, based on the following evidence: • Mr. Levy did not indicate that he cleaned the wounds or that he kept them clean. • Mr.

Levy did not indicate that he placed any antibiotic or antiseptic cream or similar treatment on the wounds. • He allowed the puppy to lick the wounds, stating that he believed that the saliva contained some antibiotic compound. • He did not indicate the basis of such belief. • Neither veterinarian agreed with the proposition that the puppy’s saliva contains antibiotic properties. • It was not reasonable for Mr. Levy to rely on the opinion of Ms. Newell, who had no medical training and whose experience was described as being at a puppy mill. • Mr.

Levy acknowledged that the cuts on the puppy were nasty. • The cuts were not getting better. • It was unreasonable not to take the puppy to the vet as the injury was becoming more severe over time. • Mr. Levy’s watching did not constitute due diligence. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.65-66 Evidence that the Puppy Healed Without Surgery [ 35 ] Judge Chisholm did not misapprehend the evidence when he concluded that the puppy required medical attention for the wounds, despite the fact that the puppy healed without surgery. [ 36 ] A trial, Dr.

MacKenzie explained how veterinary treatment short of surgery was still necessary for healing, to relieve discomfort, and to prevent the onset of serious illness, such as sepsis: Transcript, April 13, 2021, Appeal Book, p.87. [ 37 ] At trial, Dr.

Pollard continued the anti-inflammatory medication to relieve discomfort and to relieve some swelling, and the antibiotic to resolve the infection: Transcript, April 13, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.134-136. [ 38 ] At trial, both veterinarians agreed that the provision of antibiotic and anti-inflammatory medication was medically necessary to ensure that the puppy recuperated properly: Transcript, April 13, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.94; 97-99; 100-101, 111; 136-137; 153-155. [ 39 ] In concluding that the puppy required medical attention, Judge Chisholm did not fail to consider evidence relevant to a material issue, make a mistake as to the substance of the evidence, or fail to give proper effect to evidence.

Nor did he render an unreasonable verdict. In addition, the evidence of the nature of the wounds and the evidence of the veterinarians is reasonably capable of supporting his conclusion that the Crown had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Levy failed to provide the puppy with adequate medical attention contrary to s.22(

b) of the Act . Timing of Wounds [ 40 ] Mr. Levy says that Judge Chisholm erred in relying on the evidence of Dr. MacKenzie because Dr. MacKenzie in turn relied on the statement of Special Constable Eveleigh that the puppy’s wounds were a week old or more, when the wounds were only two days old at the time of Dr. MacKenzie’s examination. [ 41 ] In my view, Judge Chisholm’s reference to Dr. MacKenzie’s opinion that the injuries had existed for at least a week, goes to the details of his decision, rather than to the substance of it.

In other words, Judge Chisholm’s reference to the timing of the injuries is peripheral to his reasoning, rather than material to it. [ 42 ] Furthermore, the timing of the wounds did not play an essential

part in Judge Chisholm’s reasoning process resulting in the conviction. [ 43 ] First, Dr. MacKenzie’s evidence was clear: her opinion was not dependent on the timing of the wounds. She testified as follows when cross-examined by Mr. Levy: … Q: You, were you aware of when that injury might have occurred? A: I had … they’d said a week or more, I would … at least a week. Q: A week or more? A: Right.

Q: And this, when it was brought in was a Monday, I believe. A: I’m not sure. Q: No? I am. A: Yes. Q: Anyway, the injury occurred on a Saturday. A: Okay. Q: And that would mean three days … A: Right. Q: … at the most. So would you change your … A: Not at all. … Q: We heard in the last witness’ statement that the injury occurred on Saturday at noon, approximately noon. Now, does that change your assessment in any way? A: No. Transcript, April 13, 2021, at pp.96 and 97 [ 44 ] Second, it was not only Dr. MacKenzie’s opinion that the puppy required medical attention. Dr.

Pollard was also of the opinion that the puppy’s wounds required medical attention. Dr. Pollard did not rely on information about the timing of the puppy’s wounds. [ 45 ] Third, Judge Chisholm did not rely on the injury’s timing in his reasons, but rather on the nature of the injuries and the expert opinion evidence of the veterinarians that the injuries would not have healed without medical intervention. Transcript, Trial Decision, November 5, 2021, Appeal Book, at p.44. [ 46 ] The error alleged by Mr.

Levy – that Judge Chisholm found that the wounds were at least a week old – does not go to the substance of material parts of the evidence that bears on an essential part of the reasoning process leading to the conviction. See Lohrer , supra at para.9. Judge Chisholm did not err in his appreciation of the evidence in a manner that could have affected the outcome: see Lohrer , supra at para.10. [ 47 ] In addition, the evidence relied on by Judge Chisholm for his verdict – the nature of the injuries and the opinions of the veterinarians - is reasonably capable of supporting his conclusion that Mr.

Levy failed to provide the puppy with adequate medical attention. Dog Saliva [ 48 ] Judge Chisholm was entitled to reject Mr. Levy’s assertion that dog saliva does not have antibacterial properties. Mr. Levy provided no support at trial, beyond his subjective opinion, of this proposition. Mr. Levy did not succeed in having the veterinarians agree with his suggestion that dog saliva has healing and antibacterial properties. Judge Chisholm did not misapprehend the evidence. Moreover, the evidence is reasonably capable of supporting Judge Chisholm’s conclusion that Mr.

Levy failed to provide the puppy with adequate medical attention by monitoring the puppy and allowing it to lick its wounds. Monitoring

[ 49 ] Judge Chisholm’s conclusion that Mr. Levy had not exercised due diligence was firmly grounded in the evidence. The two cuts on the puppy’s legs were severe, nasty. They were deep, almost to the bone. Both veterinarians agreed that the puppy required medical attention. Both prescribed antibiotic and anti-inflammatory medication. Both agreed that the puppy would not have healed without medical intervention. Despite the severity of the wounds, Mr. Levy took no steps to address the injury or to seek medical attention. Mr.

Levy provided no support for his contention that allowing the puppy to lick the wounds was reasonable because dog saliva has healing properties. [ 50 ] Judge Chisholm did not misapprehend the evidence when he rejected Mr. Levy’s due diligence defence. Additionally, the evidence is reasonably capable of supporting Judge Chisholm’s conclusion that that Mr. Levy’s decision to “monitor” the puppy did not constitute due diligence. Sentence [ 51 ] Judge Chisholm imposed the following sentence on Mr. Levy: (

a) a fine of $300, plus a $45 surcharge, for the breaches of the Regulations ; (

b) a fine of $500, plus a $75 surcharge, for the s.21(2) offence; and (

c) an order prohibiting Mr. Levy from having custody, care, or control any animal for period of five years, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, including that he shall be permitted to have custody, care or control of up to two dogs for the purpose of companionship, and that he shall surrender to the SPCA any other animals in his custody, care or control within seven days. [ 52 ]

Section 7 of the

Summary Proceedings Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c.450 incorporates the general sentencing principles found in ss.718 , 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 53 ] In animal welfare regulatory offences, courts have said that the primary sentencing objectives are denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation: see R. v. MacIsaac , 2008 NSPC 81 at paras.27-29; R. v. Perrault , 2007 NSPC 14 at paras.33-39; R. v. McConkey , 2008 ABPC 37 at para.27; R. v. Schultz (No.3) , 2019 ABPC 97 at paras.54-61; and R. v.

Irving , 2019 ABPC 307 at paras.34-36. [ 54 ] The Act explicitly granted Judge Chisholm the authority to make the prohibition order. Under s.35(1A) of the Act , where a person is found guilty of an offence under the Act or the Regulations , the judge may make an order requiring the person to comply with such conditions as the judge considers appropriate and just in the circumstances for securing the person’s good conduct and for preventing the person from repeating the same offence or committing other offences.

Under s.35(2) of the Act , the judge may make an order restraining the person from having custody, care or control of animals for such period of time as is specified by the court. [ 55 ] In sentencing Mr. Levy, Judge Chisholm explicitly recognized that, in determining an appropriate sentence, he was required to consider the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the individual, and to impose a sentence that was appropriate to the offence and the offender. See Transcript, Sentencing Decision, December 2, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.14 and 16. [ 56 ] Judge Chisholm noted that Mr.

Levy had already incurred significant consequences. Approximately 23 puppies and dogs were seized from him and not returned. Each of these dogs had a financial value and presented a potential income for Mr. Levy. Judge Chisholm also acknowledged that, in addition to the financial loss, Mr. Levy suffered an emotional loss as he viewed these dogs as family and that their removal resulted in a loss of companionship. He noted that Mr. Levy is an individual of modest income, and that he had the strong support of his wife, family and friends.

See Transcript, Sentencing Decision, December 2, 2021, Appeal Book, pp.100- 102. [ 57 ] At the sentencing hearing, the Crown recommended the imposition of a fine of $5000 for each offence. However, Judge Chisholm took into account Mr. Levy’s individual circumstances and the consequences already suffered by him in rejecting the amount of the fines recommended by the Crown. [ 58 ] Judge Chisholm also rejected the recommendation of the Crown for a ten-year prohibition order.

Rather, he limited it to five years, for the following reasons: In relation to the Crown request for a prohibition order, I have considered whether or not it is necessary and appropriate to grant such an order. As previously indicated, Mr. Levy is a gentleman who holds strong views with respect to the care of dogs. I believe it is necessary in order to ensure that there is not future violation of the Rules and Regulations relating to dog care, that there be an order restricting his possession of and activities in relation to dogs.

This order will consider and balance his right to possess dogs for companionship. … I’m also satisfied that the period of the order ought not be for ten years as recommended by the Crown, but for a lesser period of five years. Transcript, Sentencing Decision, December 2, 2021 at p.17. [ 59 ] The sentence, including the prohibition order, served the principles of denunciation and deterrence, as well as the principle of rehabilitation. Judge Chisholm imposed fines, but exercised restraint given Mr. Levy’s individual circumstances. He imposed the conditional prohibition order because he found that Mr.

Levy was in need of deterrence given his strong views, but allowed him to keep

up to two dogs for companionship and limited the order to five years instead of ten, consistent with the principle of rehabilitation. [ 60 ] Judge Chisholm’s sentence is not demonstrably unfit. Judge Chisholm did not make an error in principle, for example, by committing an error of law, failing to consider a relevant factor, or erroneously considering an aggravating or mitigating factor. Conclusion [ 61 ] Mr. Levy’s appeal of his convictions and his sentence is dismissed. Costs [ 62 ] The Crown reserved its right to make legal argument regarding costs.

If the parties cannot agree on costs, I will receive written submissions from the Crown within 2 weeks of this decision, and written submissions from Mr. Levy within 4 weeks of this decision. Gatchalian, J.