The appellant challenged a summary conviction appeal court decision that had interfered with a trial acquittal on the first count in an animal welfare prosecution.
The Court of Appeal held that there was evidence on which the trial judge could reasonably make the necessary findings and that the summary conviction appeal court judge erred in law by treating the verdict as perverse.
On the cross-appeal, the prosecuting society argued that the respondent should have been convicted on a second count for failing to authorize veterinary treatment, but the court held the evidence could not support a finding of wilful neglect or failure to provide suitable and adequate care.
Leave was granted on both matters, the appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and no costs were ordered.
