Introduction

On a hot June day in 2015, Anita Krajnc, an animaladvocate with Toronto Pig Save in Ontario, Canada,approached a truck transporting nearly 200 pigs.They were making the approximately 100 kilometre (60mile) trip to slaughter. She observed the apparentlythirsty pigs, and through the slats in the side ofthe stopped truck, gave the overheated animals somewater from a bottle. The truck driver reportedlyemerged and used his phone to video record what wastranspiring. The exchange between the two of them asrecorded went as follows:

This was not the first time that activists had givenwater to pigs being transported to thisslaughterhouse (Carter, 2016a). Nonetheless, thistime the driver called the police prior to takingthe pigs to the slaughterhouse. Krajnc was chargedwith criminal mischief, which carries with it thepotential of imprisonment (originally with apotential maximum of 10 years, but later reduced toa summary conviction offence with a maximum of sixmonths) and a fine of up to $5,000. The trial beganin August 2016; Krajnc pleaded not guilty. In thefirst week of May 2017 – eight months after thefirst court appearance (well above the average forsuch cases) – Ontario Court judge David Harrisdismissed the charge of criminal mischief.

Although interesting in its own right, this caseprovides a useful context for exploring the legaland social constructions of ‘food crime’. If onewere to simply employ a legalistic definition, thiscase would be considered a food crime because of thepotential of food adulteration caused by Krajnc's‘criminal mischief ’. However, this chapter presentsthe argument that while this case is in fact a foodcrime, it is not because of Krajnc's actions. Itbegins by exploring two aspects of Canadian law thatprovide the backdrop for this case: the legal statusof animals as property, and transportationregulations that mandate the minimum amount of carerequired when transporting animals to slaughter.