>>103703547https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15991/index.do"The trial judge was of the view that bestiality in the Code means touching between a person and an animal for a person’s sexual purpose and he concluded that penetration was not required. The trial judge preferred to interpret the elements of bestiality so that they would reflect the current views on what constitutes prohibited sexual acts. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed D.L.W.’s appeal against the bestiality conviction and acquitted him of the bestiality count. The majority concluded that the term “bestiality” had a common law meaning that included penetration as one of its essential elements. The dissenting judge found that penetration was not an element of bestiality and he would have dismissed the appeal."
...
"Applying the principles that guide statutory interpretation leads to the conclusion in this case that the term “bestiality” has a well?established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal. Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality. Parliament adopted that term without adding a definition of it and the legislative history and evolution of the relevant provisions show no intent to depart from the well?understood legal meaning of the term. Moreover, the courts should not, by development of the common law, broaden the scope of liability for the offence of bestiality. Any expansion of criminal liability for this offence is within Parliament’s exclusive domain. "
This was actually a conservative legal decision. The courts said "It's not our job to broaden the scope of the law banning bestiality." effectively they declined to legislate from the bench, which is what adopting a different meaning of the term would have done.
