An animal cruelty charge against Marineland has been stayed, sparking outrage from animal welfare groups who had filed complaints against the tourist attraction in Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Last December, Niagara Regional Police accused the park of using dolphins and whales for entertainment.
Marineland then denied the charge, saying it was instead providing education to the public. The park did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The Ministry of the Attorney General has attested that Crown Attorney Michal Sokolski carefully reviewed the case and determined that a stay of charges was appropriate.
Last Chance for Animals and Animal Justice, two animal rights groups based in California and Toronto respectively, filed complaints with police in 2021 alleging the park was using dolphins in a show for entertainment. .
The groups had given lengthy videos of Marineland dolphin shows to police and provided statements to investigators.
The videos, shared with The Canadian Press, appear to show dolphins pirouetting around a pool to get food from staff, all in front of an audience.
“We consider this to be totally unacceptable and ignoring animal abuse,” said Miranda Desa, Canadian lawyer for Last Chance for Animals, of the suspension. I have never seen a dance party with dolphins in the wild”.
The federal government’s anti-captivity legislation passed in 2019 made the performance of dolphins and whales illegal.
Niagara police had investigated the allegations involving Marineland and, several months later, filed the first such charge under anti-captivity laws. Marineland was facing one count of using a captive cetacean for entertainment without permission.
Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, said she was shocked by the Crown’s decision to stay the charge.
“If the Crown is unwilling to pursue a simple and clear case, it leaves me very pessimistic about the importance of animals to the justice system,” she said.
Mme Labchuk and M.me Desa were both on hand when the charge was stayed, saying the Crown told the court it did not proceed because it believed the video evidence was biased, among other things.
According to them, the Crown also told the court that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction, but that the case would require many resources.