Vernon man sentenced on animal cruelty charges will get to keep his dog
VERNON – An unfortunate case of animal cruelty was laid out in Vernon Provincial Court this week, and it wasn’t just sad for the pet.
Brian Jacobson, 47, was charged with causing unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal, failing to provide necessities, and causing an animal to be in distress following an SPCA cruelty investigation at his Vernon home in November 2013.
At the time, Jacobson was caring for two dogs as well as some cats, Crown counsel Alexandra Janse said. The older dog, which had cancer and severe matting, was voluntarily surrendered to the SPCA and eventually put down after seeing a veterinarian. Another dog was left in his care provided he improve its conditions.
Defence lawyer Nick Jacob said the SPCA’s investigation came on the heels of Jacobson’s wife passing away in March of 2013.
“Mr. Jacobson was married to his wife for 24 years,” Jacob said. “Prior to her death she was the primary caregiver of the dogs.”
After she died, Jacobson and his daughter were left responsible for the pets, Jacob said.
“The type of offence is not intentional cruelty,” Jacob said. “(It’s) more in the line of negligence by people struggling to get by and still reeling from the death of the matriarch of the family.”
Jacob asked Provincial Court Judge Mark Takahashi to consider allowing his client to keep a four-year-old dog. He said the dog is doing well and added Jacobson’s youngest son has a strong attachment to it.
Takahashi sentenced Jacobson to a fine of $250, plus $120 in restitution to the SPCA. Takahashi also banned him from owning animals for five years, but made an exception for the four-year-old dog. A condition of the exemption is the SPCA may conduct unannounced inspections to confirm the dog’s welfare. Of Jacobson's three charges, those of causing unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal and failing to provide necessaries were stayed.
Jacobson’s daughter Alicia faces animal cruelty charges in relation to the same set of events. She was scheduled to make an appearance in Vernon court the same day as her father, but did not attend. Her file is expected to be transferred to the Nanaimo Law Courts.
To contact the reporter for this story, email Charlotte Helston at chelston@infonews.ca or call 250-309-5230. To contact the editor, email mjones@infonews.ca or call 250-718-2724.
Join the Conversation!
Want to share your thoughts, add context, or connect with others in your community? Create a free account to comment on stories, ask questions, and join meaningful discussions on our new site.
12 responses
-
Sarina I wish they had called you to testify! Maybe if the judge knew this information he may have ruled differently.So very sad…any way you can contact the court – or even InfoNews Vernon – with this?
-
Well this judge obviously isn’t an animal lover or perhaps doesn’t own pets. If this was a child it would have been taken away and put in foster care..so why wasn’t this dog?And the fact that the daughter didn’t even show up for court clearly sends a message that she thinks she did nothing wrong. I do not care if it is ” not intentional cruelty” or not ( or whatever the excuse they want to use as to why the animal was neglected) it is still abuse. This dog should have been taken away and put in foster care. If the family loves the dog so much they would arrange visitations with the fosters. Giving the dog back to people that have already abused and neglected it is not looking out for the well being of the animal.. and I consider that abuse as well! Shame on you judge for allowing this!
-
-
-
That’s too bad about his wife, but I’m sorry, that’s no excuse to neglect your pets. In my family, my furkids are family too. The dog should have a chance at having a family that can care for it both physically and emotionally.
-
I cannot believe what I am reading.What kind of crackpot judge would allow an animal abuser to keep the pet after finding them guilty.I don’t care if the circumstances were what they stated, those animals have a right to have a safe and loving home.Another example of our POOR justice system.Once again I am disgusted with the outcome of yet another animal abuse case.
-
The judge should have ordered the family to attend grief counseling, and dog training classes making them the stipulation in order to keep the dog. Further recommendation should have provided for alife time ban and the dog removed if these conditions were not attended. There is a serious problem here, and we will only see them in court again.
-
I understand that he didn’t intentionally mean to neglect them. They should be rehomed, not as a penalty, but for his sake as well. Unless the daughter was living at home and can care for them properly, they should go to someone who can give them the care they need…..and he can see them from time to time.
-
What a fucked up system! The justice system in Canada and the ones behind the bench need to pull their heads out of their asses. Cruelty is cruelty. His son is attached to the dog but turned a blind eye to the neglect. That’s not attachment! That’s cruelty! So the dog suffers because the judge put his heart on the sleeve of the family instead of the animal who needs a human for survival. Dumb asses!
-
No one shouild be given an animal back, no matter wahat the circumstances are. They forgot them once and could very well forget about them again.
-
My heart goes out to a family facing the tragic loss of a loved one. But having “a strong attachment” to an animal would generally also mean caring for that animal. I’m sure the case is more complicated than a few paragraphs of a news story, but from what is reported, the family needs to heal and the dog needs a new home with someone who is emotionally, physically and financially able to care for it.
-
wow – so you are charged with cruelty to animals but yet get to keep the animal that you were not providing for? Do we have to wait until the dog starves to death to enact his ban on no animals for five years? If his son has such a strong bond – why was he not caring for the dogs? I understand the family was devastated when the Mother passed away, but should that be a reason to allow the poor dog back into the same house that abused him? I feel so sorry for the dog.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.