B.C. man banned from owning pets for life after dog found in ‘abhorrent condition’

A Shih Tzu is pictured in this undated file photo. (Shutterstock)

Warning: This story contains details some readers may find disturbing.

A British Columbia provincial court judge has ordered man to pay a $5,000 fine and serve two years of probation after his dog was found so severely neglected that it had to be euthanized.

Daniel Keith Abernethy, 68, was also handed a lifetime ban on owning or having custody of an animal.

Crown prosecutors had sought a 90-day jail sentence for Abernethy, who appeared in court without a lawyer and maintained his innocence of the charge of permitting an animal to be in distress.

Judge Cassandra Malfair heard that Abernethy owned two elderly Shih Tzus after separating from his former spouse. One of the dogs had died before August 2021, when a family friend noticed the deteriorating condition of the remaining dog, Sarah, and alerted Abernethy’s ex-spouse, who retrieved the animal and took her to a veterinarian. Sarah was euthanized a short time later.

“Sarah was in abhorrent condition at the time of her removal,” Malfair wrote in her Nov. 27 sentencing decision. “She was wasting and dehydrated. She had a painful ruptured eye, an infected wound on her leg, and matted, dirty fur.”

Eye injury, maggot infestation

The judge went on to describe how the 14-year-old dog was weak and unable to walk.

“Her abdominal area was infested with live maggots,” she wrote. “She smelled fetid and was unresponsive to stimuli, except when the veterinarian attempted to examine her painful eye.”

The veterinarian estimated the dog’s condition had worsened over roughly two weeks. Although Abernethy was not accused of causing the injuries, the judge said he still had a duty to seek medical care for the animal or, if necessary, arrange humane euthanasia.

“The wasting, dehydration and maggots were consistent with the dog being immobile for a lengthy period and left to lie in her own waste,” Malfair wrote, again emphasizing that the pet had not been confined or physically restrained by Abernethy.

The accused argued he was innocent because he had been incapacitated by depression and unable to care for himself, let alone the dog. The judge said that while his mental state was relevant to his sentencing, it did not excuse the offence itself, as owners are strictly liable for an animal’s well-being.

‘Does not wish to go to jail’

The court heard that Abernethy had no prior criminal record and had been under significant financial and emotional strain following retirement, marital breakdown, a telephone scam that cost him $20,000, and further investment losses. Abernethy said these stresses led to a “nervous breakdown” as Sarah’s health declined.

Abernethy, representing himself in court, offered no opinion on an appropriate sentence in the case “other than he does not wish to go to jail,” the judge noted.

He told the court he loves animals and believed Sarah was holding on to support him during his struggles. “He also claims he could not afford to pay for a veterinarian in light of his financial troubles,” the judge wrote. “Mr. Abernethy says he once took a dog to the vet to be euthanized and found it to be a traumatic experience. He felt immense guilt and remorse for taking the animal’s life.”

Abernethy admitted he once attempted to euthanize the dog himself using acetaminophen, but the attempt failed.

“He also claims he was carrying Sarah to her food and water,” the judge wrote. “This evidence suggests Mr. Abernethy was aware Sarah was no longer mobile and that her condition had deteriorated to the point where euthanasia was within appropriate contemplation.”

Malfair accepted that Abernethy was overwhelmed but said his actions showed he was not unaware of the dog’s suffering. “It is more likely Mr. Abernethy passively turned a blind eye to Sarah’s condition in the expectation her natural death was imminent,” she wrote.

‘Deeply remorseful’

Under B.C.’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Abernethy could have faced up to two years in jail and a fine of $75,000.

“Companion animals are sentient beings almost entirely dependent on their owners for the necessities of life,” the judge wrote. “If an owner cannot meet those needs due to personal circumstances such as changes in housing, relationships, finances, or health, that owner has a positive duty to find alternative care for the animal or surrender it to an agency such as the SPCA. Pets should not suffer only because their owner is experiencing a personal decline. Their fates are not inextricably linked.”

Malfair said denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing principles in such cases. While Abernethy insisted he had done nothing wrong, the judge accepted that his moral culpability was mitigated somewhat by his mental health struggles, lack of criminal history and lack of prior history of animal neglect.

“I also accept Mr. Abernethy loved Sarah and feels deeply remorseful his neglect caused her distress, notwithstanding his position that this neglect was not his fault due to his mental state at the time,” the judge wrote. “Mr. Abernethy broke down several times during the trial when talking about Sarah.”

Malfair ultimately found that imposing a jail sentence would be “excessive” in the case, preferring instead a $5,000 fine and probation period of two years. “Mr. Abernethy maintained his innocence under the mistaken belief his lack of intent offered a valid defence to the charge,” she wrote. “It is unfortunate Mr. Abernethy did not have the benefit of counsel, as the matter may have ultimately proceeded by means of a guilty plea if Mr. Abernethy had been properly advised.”

Lifetime pet prohibition

Abernethy opposed an animal-ownership ban, which the judge referred to as “the most impactful deterrent sentence this court could impose, even when weighed against the prospect of jail.”

The offender said his desire to care for animals is so strong that he even took up beekeeping while awaiting his sentence due to bail conditions that prevented him from having pets.

Though he had no previous complaints of animal neglect, the judge found he had a history of neglecting “important things that required his attention.”

For example, after Sarah’s sister, Susie, died, Abernethy kept the dog’s body inside his home for months because the ground was too frozen to bury her, the judge wrote. Abernethy disposed of the remains only after his former spouse demanded he do something about them.

“There are reasonable grounds to believe that if Mr. Abernethy were to assume care of another animal, he may again become blind to its needs,” the judge wrote.

“The risk is considerable given the level of suffering Sarah endured, and the multitude of conditions which went unnoticed or untreated by Mr. Abernethy,” she concluded. “As such, I find it appropriate to impose a lifetime animal prohibition,” restricting him from having custody or control of an animal.