R. v. Knuff, 2023 ONCJ 73

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Knuff , 2023 ONCJ 73 DATE: 2023 02 10 COURT FILE No.: Central West Region (Niagara) 998 45201036 BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING — AND — Robert Knuff Before Justice J. De Filippis Heard on February 1 & 9, 2023 Reasons for Judgment released on February 10, 2023 Ms. S. Johnson................................................................................... counsel for the Crown Mr. V.J. Singh............................................................................................ for the defendant De Filippis, J.: [ 1 ] The defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing a pet dog, contrary to section 445(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . The Crown proceeded summarily. As such, the maximum sentence is 18 months imprisonment. [ 2 ] The defendant has been in custody since his arrest on December 2, 2022. The Crown suggests the appropriate sentence is six months in jail, followed by a period of probation. The Crown also seeks an order banning the defendant from owning a pet animal for 20 years. The Defence argues that the time the defendant has already spent in custody is sufficient punishment and that he should be placed on probation.

In the alternative, the Defence suggests a conditional sentence order (house arrest) be imposed. [ 3 ] These reasons explain why I accept the position advanced by the Crown. [ 4 ] The defendant is 40 years old. He has been in a relationship with Ms. Amanda Vivian for seven years. They have two young children and all live together in a house.

At the time of this incident, they had four dogs. [ 5 ] The Crown advised the court of the following allegations: On the day in question, the defendant and his domestic partner argued over their financial difficulties, with emphasis on the cost of caring for one of the dogs, Star. The defendant was verbally abusive and threated to kill Star. Ms. Vivian left the home in a motor vehicle. On her return, she opened the garage door to find Star hanging from the rafters on a white rope. Ms. Vivian was frantic and unsuccessfully tried to get the dog down. She ran away and called a friend with the news.

That friend told Ms. Vivian’s mother. The latter called the police. The police soon found the dead dog wrapped in plastic in a corner of the backyard. [ 6 ] After hearing these allegations, the defendant made an unsworn statement to the Court. He acknowledged arguing with his partner and hanging the dog. He denied previously threatening her that he would do so. [ 7 ] Ms. Vivian testified. She acknowledged being interviewed by the police. She denied the part of the police report in which she is said to have stated that the defendant threatened to kill the dog during their argument.

She noted that they had argued over money and the dog and she left. On her return she found Star hanging in the garage.

[8] According to Ms. Vivian, Star was an 80 pound, three-year-old dog with health issues. The animal had stomach problems andoften defecated and urinated in the home. A special diet cost about $200/week. This was a source of many arguments between Ms.Vivian and the defendant as they were under great financial stress; they were in arrears on their property taxes and their credit cards hadreached the maximum debt load. She added that the defendant is the only source of income for the family and if he is not released fromjail soon, they risk losing their home. [9] Ms.

Vivian stated she loved the dog but she can understand why the defendant “did what he did”. She noted that that they couldnot afford to pay a veterinarian to “put down Star”. Since this incident the other three dogs have been given up and placed with otherfamilies. [10] The Defence advised that the defendant was raised by a single mother and had struggled with addiction. He was driven to thiscrime by acute financial stress. Counsel said he “snapped”. He has been in protective custody because the nature of this crime puts himat risk of retribution from other inmates.

This has made the defendant’s custody especially hard. As such, there is no need for specificdeterrence. [11] The Crown noted the seriousness of the offence and emphasized its domestic context. Counsel argued that the effort required bythe defendant to kill the dog negates the suggestion he simply snapped. Counsel added that the sentence must reflect the need tocondemn the defendant’s misconduct. [12] Both lawyers provided me with helpful caselaw. It will suffice to note that these cases proceed from the doctrine ofproportionality – the cardinal principle of sentencing.

Proportionality means that the severity of a sentence will depend on theseriousness of the offence as well as the moral blameworthiness of the offender; see R v Lacasse 2015 SCC 64 . [13] For many people, a pet dog is a source of comfort and joy. Having a pet is also a responsibility. Canadians expect, and the lawdemands, that animals be properly cared for – even when problems develop. [14] I accept that the defendant and his partner face pressing financial issues. However, a way should have been found to properly putdown the dog, if that is what was needed. There is no excuse for what the defendant did.

In this regard, I note the element of planninginvolved. The dog was 80 pounds in weight. It took effort to tie a rope around the animal’s neck and hoist her up to the rafters. Starmust have suffered terribly as she suffocated. [15] Ms. Vivian’s testimony reflects her difficult circumstances. Apart from her love for the defendant, she wants him released sothey can address their financial situation. Accordingly, I consider her statement to me that the defendant did not previously threaten tokill Star to be suspect.

I am confident that , before testifying, she understood that to threaten harm to a person’s dog in the context of adomestic dispute is a serious aggravating factor on sentence. In any event, this much is clear: The parties argued about finances and thedog. Ms. Vivian left. The defendant killed the dog. He left Star hanging in the garage where Ms. Vivian was certain to see it on herreturn. I have no doubt this was done deliberately to send a message. This is troubling. [16] The defendant has a criminal record. It includes several convictions, none of which are related to the present offence.

It has beennine years since his last offence. I take this record into account, but it is of limited relevance. [17] Denunciation and deterrence are the most important factors in this sentence. A “time served” sentence does not adequatelyaddress these factors. I accept that the defendant’s time in jail is particularly hard. I regret that the family may lose their home by hiscontinued detention. However, these facts do not displace the seriousness of the offence and the defendant’s high moralblameworthiness. [18] As of the date of these reasons, the defendant will have been incarcerated for 71 days.

With the Summers Credit, this amounts to107 days. I sentence him to an additional 75 days so that the effective sentence is six months in jail. [19] Upon release, the defendant is on probation for one year. In addition to the statutory terms, he must report to a probation officerand take counselling as directed, including programs with respect to domestic conflict. [20] I also impose an order pursuant to

section 447.1 of the Code; he is prohibited from owning, having the custody or control of, orresiding in the same premises as an animal or a bird for a period of 20 years. [21] Having regard to the defendant’s financial circumstances, the victim fine surcharge is waived. Released: February 10, 2023 Signed: Justice J. De Filippis