COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– ENRICO
CONFORTI (Appellant)
AND RE: JULIE WOODYER, Agent of the PEEL HUMANE SOCIETY
(Appellant/Prosecutor) –and– ENRICO CONFORTI
(Respondent/Defendant)
BEFORE: CATZMAN, WEILER and LASKIN JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Anthony E. Bak, for Enrico Conforti
Simon Shields, for the Peel Humane Society
HEARD: May 16, 2000
On appeal from the decision, dated May 4, 1998, of Langdon J.
sitting as a judge of the summary conviction appeal court.
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] In our view, the appeal must be allowed and the cross-appeal
must be dismissed.
[2] The trial judge found Mr. Conforti’s evidence clear and
straightforward, and expressed himself to be satisfied with the
reasonableness of Mr. Conforti’s actions. There was evidence on
which the trial judge could reasonably make the findings and
reach the conclusions that he did, and therefore the summary
conviction appeal court judge erred in law in holding the trial
judge’s verdict to be perverse. Accordingly, Mr. Conforti’s
appeal with respect to the first count must succeed.
[3] On the cross-appeal, the Peel Humane Society advanced in
this court the argument that Mr. Conforti should have been
convicted on the second count because he failed to authorize
medical treatment for the dog once it was in the veterinarian’s
office. The evidence about what Mr. Conforti was prepared to do
at that stage is somewhat conflicting but, at minimum, it could
not support a finding that he wilfully neglected or failed to
provide suitable and adequate care for the animal. Accordingly,
the Society’s appeal with respect to the second count must fail.
[4] Leave is granted on both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
The appeal is allowed, the order of the summary conviction appeal
court judge is set aside, and the acquittal on count 1 is
restored. The cross-appeal is dismissed.
[5] We do not consider it appropriate to make any order as to
costs.
(signed) “M. A. Catzman J.A.”
(signed) “K. M. Weiler J.A.”
(signed) “John Laskin J.A.”