Dear York Regional Police,
I am writing as a citizen of Ontario to demand accountability, transparency and the appropriate enforcement of Canada's Criminal Code regarding the death of Heiniu.
Months have passed since Heiniu died during an interaction with Aurora animal control officers on May 4, 2026.
The Criminal Code of Canada recognizes that causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal can constitute a criminal offence. The law does not create an exception because the people involved are animal control officers, municipal employees or other public officials.
Those entrusted with protecting animals must be held to the same standard of accountability expected of every citizen.
The law must be applied equally, regardless of who is involved.
Heiniu's death has raised serious questions about what happened, the actions of the animal control officers involved, and whether the conduct that led to Heiniu's death may have crossed the line from poor judgment or inadequate care into criminal conduct.
Justice cannot depend on who owns the animal, who was involved, or whether those involved are government employees.
Animal protection laws exist to protect animals. They must also be enforced equally.
If a private citizen were alleged to have caused the death of a dog under similar circumstances, the public would reasonably expect the circumstances to be investigated and, where supported by the evidence, appropriate charges to be considered — including criminal charges.
Why should this case be any different?
CRIMINAL CODE RESPONSIBILITIES
Animal protection in Ontario involves both provincial and federal law.
The Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act creates provincial offences that are prosecuted under the Provincial Offences Act. However, the Criminal Code of Canada separately recognizes animal cruelty as a criminal offence.
Section 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code states:
"Every one commits an offence who wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird."
Section 445.1(3) further provides:
"For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully, as the case may be."
These provisions matter.
The question is not simply whether the conduct may constitute an offence under Ontario's animal welfare legislation. The separate question is whether the evidence supports an offence under the Criminal Code.
A potential Criminal Code offence cannot simply be left unexamined because the same circumstances may also give rise to an investigation under the PAWS Act.
Provincial animal welfare proceedings and a criminal investigation are not interchangeable. They involve different legislation, different offences and different enforcement processes.
Where the available evidence raises a reasonable concern that a criminal offence may have occurred, that evidence should be assessed by the police.
That responsibility falls within the mandate of York Regional Police.
THE EVIDENCE MUST BE INVESTIGATED
We believe the physical, eyewitness and medical evidence surrounding Heiniu's death raises serious questions that warrant a criminal investigation.
We are not asking York Regional Police to presume guilt.
We are asking York Regional Police to investigate.
It is the responsibility of an independent police investigation to determine what happened, assess the evidence, establish whether the conduct falls within the Criminal Code, and determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
The fact that the individuals involved were acting in their capacity as animal control officers should not prevent that investigation.
Nor should the existence of a separate provincial animal welfare process be used as a reason to avoid examining potential criminal liability.
Heiniu cannot speak for himself.
The evidence must speak for him.
YORK REGIONAL POLICE — WE ARE ASKING YOU TO ACT
We are asking York Regional Police to:
• Open an independent criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding Heiniu's death.
• Examine the available physical, eyewitness, medical and other relevant evidence under the applicable provisions of the Criminal Code.
• Determine whether the evidence supports charges under section 445.1 or any other applicable provision of the Criminal Code.
• Preserve and obtain all relevant evidence necessary to conduct a complete investigation.
• Ensure that the investigation is independent of the municipality and the animal control service involved.
• Advise the public whether a criminal investigation has been opened, subject to any legal restrictions on disclosure.
• Once the investigation has concluded, advise the public whether criminal charges were laid, to the extent permitted by law.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
We are asking York Regional Police to investigate the evidence, determine whether a Criminal Code offence occurred, and take appropriate action where the evidence supports it.
If there is no criminal offence, the public deserves to know that conclusion was reached through a proper investigation.
If the evidence supports criminal charges, then those charges should be laid.
No one is above the law.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Email Address]
