The case involved a man who had been convicted of sexually abusing two of his step daughters, who had also been convicted of bestiality after he attempted to make the dog engage in sexual activities with one of the young girls.
A lower court convicted the man of bestiality after it heard he smeared peanut butter on the girl, who was 15 at the time of the abuse, to entice the dog to lick it off.
The lower court ruled the man was guilty of bestiality because he had received sexual gratification from the act.
However, the man, known only as D.L.W. successfully challenged the bestiality decision in the appeals court.
According to The Canadian Lawyer and Law Times, The higher court decided that a strict interpretation of the law, which dates from the English 1861 Offences Against the Person act, required penetration for a bestiality conviction.
Animal rights charity Animal Justice then challenged this decision to the Supreme Court, who ruled that when the Canadian parliament updated the criminal law relating to sexual offences it did not change the historically understood meaning of bestiality.
The Supreme Court said Parliament could have updated the interpretation of what constituted bestiality if it wished and claimed it was not the role of the courts to introduce new criminal offences.
According to the ruling: 'Courts will only conclude that a new crime has been created if the words used to do so are certain and definitive. This approach not only reflects the appropriate respective roles of Parliament and the courts, but the fundamental requirement of the criminal law that people must know what constitutes punishable conduct and what does not, especially when their liberty is at stake.'
Camille Labchuck of Animal Justice urged the Canadian Parliament to change the law in order to protect children and animals.
Speaking after the hearing, she said: 'The Supreme Court’s decision is a wake up call that laws protecting animals are severely out of date. As of today, Canadian law gives animal abusers license to use animals for their own sexual gratification. This is completely unacceptable, contrary to societal expectations, and cannot be allowed to continue.
Peter Sankoff, who argued the case said: 'As an intervener in the case, Animal Justice drove home the importance of ensuring our laws protect animals from sexual abuse.
'This decision reflects the fact that the Supreme Court was forced to work with our outdated laws. Although Animal Justice hoped for a different decision, it is encouraging that both the majority and the dissent adopted aspects of our arguments, and recognized that protecting animals is a fundamental societal value.
'Canadians care deeply about protecting animals from this type of cruelty and sexual abuse. People who sexually abuse animals often sexually abuse children as well, as the accused did in this case. Parliament must step in immediately to fix our outdated laws and protect the vulnerable from sexual exploitation.'"
Read more:
Article from Daily Mail
- R. v. D.L.W. - SCC Cases (Lexum)
- Bestiality requires penetration: SCC
- Animal Justice – Supreme Court Decision in Bestiality Case Means Parliament Must Act
Article from Daily Mail
Three years (and much mocking) later ... from the CBC:
Parliament has passed a new law cracking down on animal cruelty that will list those convicted of bestiality on Canada's national sex offenders registry.
Bill C-84 also changes wording in the Criminal Code to clarify that bestiality involves any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal. The Code's existing definition is understood to focus on penetration as the essential element in an act of bestiality...
Bill C-84 responds, in part, to a 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled a convicted sexual offender — identified only as D.L.W. to protect his victims — was not guilty of bestiality related to charges stemming from sexual activity involving one of his stepdaughters and the family dog.
In a 6-1 decision, a majority of the justices ruled that the Criminal Code provisions on bestiality did not adequately define which sexual acts with animals are prohibited. In his ruling, Justice Thomas Cromwell (who has since retired) urged Parliament to revisit the definition.
