ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
BRENDAN MILLS
Before Justice Berg
Released on
DECISION ON SENTENCE
T. Dobec counsel for the Crown
H. Colbert for the defendant
1Brendan Mills has pleaded guilty before me to a single count of having caused unnecessary suffering to a cat pursuant to s. 445.1(2) Criminal Code. The Crown has elected to proceed by way of indictment. The relevant sections read
445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years;
2Ms. Dobec, for the Crown, submits that an appropriate sentence would be in the range of three to six months incarceration followed by a period of probation. Ms. Colbert’s position is that I should conditionally discharge Mr. Mills.
3The leading appellate case in Canada would appear to be that of the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Chen, 2021 ABCA 382. While persuasive, I have not been directed to any equivalent and binding decision from our Court of Appeal. The Alberta Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of what are the primary principles in the sentencing of persons guilty of offences under this section. While that Court explicitly did not draw “a moral equivalence between human victims of crime and animals as sentient beings” (at paragraph 21), it did stress that Canadian society has evolved to a point where humans no longer have the right to do as they wish with animals. This development is the background behind the changes made by Parliament to the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code including s. 445.1. Those changes were made in 2008 and 2019.
4In Chen, a sentencing court is enjoined to focus on the gravity of the offence. This is defined at paragraph 31 as “the nature and extent of the pain, suffering or injury caused to the animal, the victim of the offence.” The sentences for such behaviour must focus primarily on deterrence and denunciation.
5Mr. Chen was sentenced at first instance to an intermittent sentence of 90 days. He had beaten a puppy “relentlessly” over a twenty-minute period. He threw the puppy against a wall. A neighbour tried to intervene but Mr. Chen turned her away. The puppy sustained the following injuries: a broken paw, broken teeth, hemorrhaging in an eye, and blunt force trauma to a hind leg, the head and abdomen. There was evidence of previously healed rib fractures. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence of 90 days intermittent; the Crown had submitted to the sentencing judge that 90 days jail was appropriate and the defence had been seeking a three-to-five-month conditional sentence. That being said, it is explicitly stated in Chen that the issue of whether the intermittent sentence was adequate was not being decided on that appeal (see, at paragraph 48).
6I have reviewed the cases to which I have been referred by counsel. As sentencing is an individualized exercise, and given the factual scenarios in those other cases, I have found them of limited assistance in this present matter. I agree with Silverstein J’s comment in R. v. Chopra, 2024 ONCJ 51 at paragraph 21 “that custodial sentences are generally reserved for prolonged animal abuse over a considerable length of time or abuse leading to the death or serious injury of the animal.”
7The facts accepted by the accused when he entered his plea of guilt are as follows. On October 31, 2025, Ottawa Police were called by Mr. Mills’ spouse, Lori Nichols. She and her 15-year-old daughter had heard the family cat Lulu in distress and had come downstairs and had observed Mr. Mills trying to suffocate the cat in a plastic bag and then tried to force the cat’s head under water in the sink. Mr. Mills was under the influence of alcohol at the time. The daughter convinced him to hand the cat over to her and she took it to safety The cat did not suffer any lasting injuries. Mr. Mills was apparently trying to kill Lulu because he did not want to pay veterinarian bills.
8Mr. Mills is 42 years of age. He has no criminal antecedents. With the exception of one issue, his background is pro-social and unusual. He was raised in a stable household by two parents. He has a positive relationship with his siblings and his father; his mother is deceased. He has been in a relationship with Ms. Nichols for some ten years He was married previously and has two teenage children from that earlier relationship. Ms. Nichols also has two children from a previous relationship. He completed high school and then a college program in fire protection technology. He has been employed in that industry since then. He has been with his current employer for the past three years.
9The significant problem in his life is an alcohol addiction. As I have already noted, Mr. Mills was intoxicated when he committed the index offence that brings him before me. From the Pre-sentence Report, I learned that his relationship with the mother of his children ended because of his drinking. In that same report, I learned that Ms. Nichols is of the view that Mr. Mills treated Lulu as he did that day due to his drinking. Since his arrest, Mr. Mills has undertaken counselling for that addiction including one on one counselling and dialectic behaviour therapy. He has continued treatment to the present time. Ms. Nichols told the court that she believes that he will be able to control his drinking and that his eyes are open now. She told the writer of the PSR that Mr. Mills would never have committed the present offence if he had been sober. That being said, she is unsure whether she wishes to reconcile with him.
10The defence has provided me with letters of support written for Mr. Mills by siblings and, as well, his ex-wife. From the letters of his sister and brother, I learned that alcoholism has been a long-standing problem for the family across several generations.
11I do not see the breakup or possible breakup of the relationship as a collateral consequence that may be taken as a mitigating factor on sentence. The reason his relationship is in its present state is due directly to the fact that his partner and the children were shocked and horrified by what he did. Moreover, even if the charge was withdrawn today, it is far from clear that Ms. Nichols would want to remain in the relationship.
12I have instructed myself in the relevant sentencing sections of the Criminal Code. Having done so, I will here apply s. 718.2 which requires me to identify the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances as part of the sentencing process.
13The first of the aggravating circumstances is that which I find to be the most significant. Mr. Mills continued in his attempt to kill the family cat even after his 15-year-old stepdaughter and his wife came on the scene. This circumstance alone places a conditional discharge out of his reach as it would be clearly contrary to the public interest in it not being sufficiently denunciatory. The fact that he was intoxicated at the time does not lessen the impact it has had upon his family.
14Secondly, the cat in question was the family pet. Thus, it was in a position of dependency upon the members of that family, Mr. Mills being one of them.
15Thirdly, Mr. Mills’ attempt to kill the cat was due to a misguided attempt to save money. I have been informed that Lulu was old but healthy at the time. Mr. Mills may have thought otherwise and wished to euthanize her, but that does not allow him to do what he did.
16Fourthly, after failing to kill Lulu by suffocating her, he then attempted to drown her.
17I turn now to the mitigating circumstances. First of all, there is the fact that Mr. Mills entered a plea of guilt. This is very important for several reasons: Ms. Nichols and her daughter did not have to testify at a trial; judicial resources are preserved; and Mr. Mills’ plea can be taken as a sign of remorse.
18He has no prior criminal record. The pre-sentence report reflects a life of otherwise pro-social behaviour. Ms. Nichols, who clearly is upset at his actions of October 31, 2025, nonetheless has stressed how out of character this was for him. It cannot be gainsaid that the prospects for rehabilitation are great in his case.
19Unlike many of the cases to which I have been referred, Mr. Mills’ actions were not the result of anger nor were they an attempt to get back at his spouse or family or in any way control them.
20I have been advised that Lulu suffered no lasting physical injuries. While I have no doubt that she understood her life was in danger, was terrified by what happened to her, and has the capacity to remember that she had been attacked, it is not possible, at least on the evidentiary record before me, to determine whether Lulu suffered psychological trauma. Indeed, I do not know whether feline psychology is such that cats can be traumatized in the human sense of the word.
21The final mitigating circumstance here is the fact that Mr. Mills has already undertaken therapy in order to maintain sobriety. Given the fact that his behaviour was alcohol fueled, this is no small point.
22I have already indicated that this is not an appropriate case for a discharge: Mr. Mills tried two different methods of killing Lulu, his family had to plead with him to save her life, and his efforts were apparently based on a drunken desire to save some money. At the very least, a conviction must be registered against him in order denounce his behaviour. However, this is not a case where a period of incarceration is required. Lulu did not suffer any lasting physical harm, there was a plea of guilt, Mr. Mills, a first-time offender and otherwise pro-social citizen, is remorseful. Furthermore, he has taken serious steps towards dealing with his alcohol problem. Therefore, I am of the opinion that deterrence and denunciation as well as rehabilitation can all be achieved where the passing of sentence is suspended and he is placed on probation along with the appropriate ancillary orders.
23The probation order will be in effect for 18 months. I have made it this length for rehabilitative reasons. Mr. Mills is before the court because of his drinking. He is at the beginning of his attempt to maintain sobriety. I applaud the efforts he has made so far, however, one is an alcoholic for life. Mr. Mills needs the further help and support and supervision that can be offered by the probation services. By the time of the termination of the order, it is hoped that he will have roughly two years of sobriety to his credit.
24The conditions of probation are as follows:
You will report immediately to probation and thereafter as directed;
You will attend for assessment and counselling for alcohol abuse;
You will sign all releases so as to permit the probation office to confirm your attendance at assessment and counselling;
You will not own, have custody or possession of, or reside with any animal.
25I decline the invitation to order that a sample of his DNA be taken and entered in the national database. I do so on the basis of his otherwise pro-social history. However, there will be an order made pursuant to s. 447.1. If I recall correctly, the Crown is seeking that the order be in effect for 10 years and the defence is in agreement. If Mr. Mills is presently employed, there will be a victim fine surcharge.
Released: July 21, 2026
Signed: Justice Berg