Laurie Blair, Michael Blair and Chrystoffer Wise are all facing charges of neglect and animal cruelty stemming from the hardships endured by a large herd of horses near Scott last winter. Charges were laid last month under both the Criminal Code of Canada and The Saskatchewan Animal Protection Act.
The charge that the persons did "wilfully permit to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to horses by starvation contrary to Section 445.1, Subsection (1)(a) of the Criminal Code" can proceed either summarily or by indictment. The difference in maximum penalties is 18 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000 by summary conviction versus a jail term of five years by indictment.
The first court date for the three accused was at Saskatchewan Provincial Court June 21 at Unity. RCMP Cpl. Haider made an unusual request to Judge Dyck, asking that the Crown be allowed to reserve its election. Normally, the presiding court officer, in this case Cpl. Haider, advises the court on the first appearance date whether the Crown will be proceeding summarily or by indictment.
Cpl. Haider explained to the judge they had just received disclosure from the SPCA and wanted the Crown prosecutor to review the reports and provide advice before making the election. Judge Dyck granted the request and Cpl. Haider handed the prosecuting lawyer in court a binder of documents approximately four inches thick.
Other charges include that the accused did "wilfully neglect or fail to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for the horses, contrary to Section 446, Subsection (1)(b) of the Criminal Code." In a summary proceeding, the maximum penalties are a six-month jail term and/or a fine of up to $5,000.
The Saskatchewan Animal Protection Act, section 4 says: "(1) No person shall cause an animal to be in distress. (2) No person responsible for an animal shall cause or permit the animal to be or to continue to be in distress." Section 14 sets out the penalty: "A person who contravenes this Part or the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $25,000, to imprisonment for not more than two years or to both."
The Animal Protection Act also gives the court the power, upon a finding of guilt, to "make an order prohibiting that person from owning or having custody or control of any animal for a period specified"
None of the accused individuals were personally present in court. Local lawyer Tyler Young spoke on their behalf. Young is also waiting for disclosure from the Crown on the case, on behalf of his clients, so no pleas were entered.
All charges have been adjourned to the next court date in Unity, Aug. 18.
