A judge is expected to rule Friday whether Crystal MacDonald is guilty of criminal negligence causing death for a dog attack that killed an 11-year-old boy two years ago. Kache Grist was visiting his father at his Summerside residence in 2024 when he was attacked on the final night of his stay, while his dad was working in the garage. In his final arguments, the Crown said evidence shows the dogs’ owner knew her pets “were prone to attacking suddenly, without warning and in non-threatening situations” and that she failed to act accordingly. The Crown’s case focused on four incidents that occurred in the nine months preceding the deadly attack. In that time, a pet Pomeranian and a pet cat were killed by the Cane Corsos, a basement tenant was bitten, the owner herself was bitten and a friend-of-a-friend was severely-injured in an attack in MacDonald’s backyard. The court heard the dog owner relied on kennels and “house rules” to control the two animals. The Crown said by MacDonald’s own admission, the rules were “openly not being followed” and it was clear the measures were “not going to reliably protect Kache.” He also argued MacDonald downplayed the attack in the backyard to Kache’s father Wesley Grist so he was “not properly informed” of its severity. In his testimony last week, Grist said he was not shown photos from the attack and during a conversation with MacDonald afterwards, he said she questioned the victim’s claim that she broke her ribs. Grist also said in court that he never viewed the dogs as dangerous, even after witnessing the fatal attack on the cat. Father ‘well aware’ of dog incidents: defense In his final arguments, the defense said Grist was “well aware” of the incidents with the dogs and suggested Kache’s father had more culpability than the dogs’ owner. He said Grist put MacDonald “in a very difficult position” bringing his son there without her permission. During her testimony, MacDonald said she told Grist she didn’t want Kache staying with them but felt she had “no choice” when he showed up at the door. She said Kache used to call her “auntie” and she became emotional in court when recalling their interactions before the attack. MacDonald testified she had been working to arrange additional training for the dogs and made an appointment to get one of them neutered but tragedy struck first. She was working on April 1, 2024 when Kache was killed. What would a ‘reasonably prudent’ person do? The court heard for a criminal negligence conviction, the crown must prove a “marked and substantial departure” from the kind of care a “reasonably prudent person” would exercise in a situation. The Crown said MacDonald could have put the dogs down after the backyard attack, prohibited Kache from staying there or used “superior” physical measures to restrain the dogs. “She ultimately settled on Kache’s safety being someone else’s problem,” he said. The defense said MacDonald recognized the risks and took “reasonable steps” to keep the boy safe. “The steps did not work but she did take steps. She heeded the risk. She was doing what she could.” He said the legal standard is not of perfection. Both dogs were euthanized after Kache was killed.
