The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal challenging convictions and fines imposed for two violations of s. 65(1) of the Health of Animals Act arising from transporting and unloading a cow in a condition causing undue suffering.
The appellant argued that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for “undue suffering,” improperly relied on expert veterinary pathology evidence, and erred in failing to apply the Kienapple principle to stay one of the convictions.
The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the causation requirement clarified in Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General) and made supported findings that both the transportation and unloading independently caused undue suffering.
The court further held that the veterinary pathologist was properly permitted to give opinion evidence within her expertise and that the two offences were distinct and did not arise from the same transaction.
The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.
