WESTLOCK – A single, illiterate father struggling with financial hardships made his first appearance in Westlock Court of Justice on Jan. 8 to face charges of causing an animal to be in distress and failing to provide proper care of an animal. His dog was apprehended by Westlock bylaw officers a month ago.
The man admitted to being overwhelmed by the legal process and expressed frustration over his lack of legal assistance.
“OK, did you talk to duty counsel,” asked Justice Gordon Putnam.
“I tried," the man said. "He called me an idiot.”
The case, handled by a special Crown that deals with bylaw offences, centres on a dog that allegedly wasn't properly cared for and is currently in a kennel, accruing daily fees of $40.
The Crown told the court that the dog should not be returned to the accused, citing concerns for the animal’s well-being.
"The opinion is that the dog should never go back to him.”
The man said he didn’t want to agree to the Crown’s terms of giving up rights to the dog because it’s his daughter’s dog and the separation from her dog is causing emotional distress.
“It’s my kid’s dog. She is sitting outside right now crying and she has cried several times in the last month.
“She has a mental handicap and doesn’t deal well with change,” he said as he put his head down and into his forehead as he stood before the court.
The dog has been in a kennel for a month at a cost of $1,200 and the man said he doesn't know what to do but added that he can’t afford another $1,200 in fees from the kennel if the case was adjourned a month as suggested. The court in Westlock hears bylaw matters once a month.
"I only get $1,500 a month,” he said
The judge asked the man if he was prepared to enter a plea, but the man said he was confused.
“I don’t know what to do because I’m illiterate and I can’t read this damn thing,” he said, referring to the legal documents he was struggling to understand.
“I’m low income. I’m a single dad with two daughters. I can’t afford $40 a day that [the kennel] is charging me and take this to someone to help me read over and figure out what I want to do – and that’s what I asked him to do today,” he added, turning and gesturing at duty counsel and saying again, “He says he won’t help me and called me an idiot.”
To that, the duty counsel lawyer said, “He is correct on both counts.”
A duty counsel lawyer is present at every court proceeding to help those facing criminal charges when they make their first court appearance and don’t have legal representation. Duty counsels are employed by legal aid programs and those assisted by duty counsel are subject to certain eligibility requirements, such as low income and in jeopardy of jail time from criminal charges. The man’s charges are municipal bylaw offences.
Putnam reminded the man that the duty counsel present in court he was referring to has 30 plus years of experience as a criminal defence lawyer, adding, “This is not a criminal matter so he is not here to serve you today.”
“So, I can’t get any help here?” asked the man.
“This is on you,” said the judge. “This is your decision.”
While the accused admitted that the dog had become underweight, he insisted that he had been feeding the animal regularly, alongside his other two dogs. He said he noticed it had gotten skinny and had planned to take it to the vet.
“I am being honest when I say I was feeding that dog man. I swear it on God. I don’t know what was going on.”
He also said he didn’t understand why he couldn’t have the one dog back but was allowed to keep the other two.
“That’s a confusion to me. Right? Because if I’m not capable of taking care of the dog why can the others remain?”
The judge cautioned him, “well that swings both ways, the court can determine you can’t take care of those. What we are looking at is the care of an animal, your ability to care for animals.”
Throughout the proceeding, the father sought guidance from the judge but was reminded that the court could not offer him legal advice.
“I can’t do that,” said Putnam. “I have to remain impartial.”
The matter was adjourned for a month and the Crown said that after hearing the man speak, a month’s adjournment would give him additional time to look at the situation more.
