Woman who stole dog in ‘violent swarming attack’ sentenced by B.C. judge

A beagle-American foxhound cross is shown in this photo. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. woman who stole her neighbour’s dog in a “violent swarming attack” was convicted of robbery but won’t serve any time behind bars, according to a recent court decision.

Shiny Christy Antonius was found guilty after a jury trial earlier this year and the judge’s sentencing decision was published online last week.

The robbery occurred on May 9, 2022, when Monica Clayton was walking her dog Lucy, a two-year-old beagle/American foxhound mix, in the neighbouorhood near the mobile home park where both women lived, according to Justice Shelley C. Fitzpatrick’s ruling.

Clayton was approached by three women, one of whom was Antonius.

“Ms. Clayton says that she was assaulted by all three women as they struck, pushed, kicked and pulled her while grabbing and wrestling Lucy from her arms. At the end of the struggle, Ms. Clayton was on the ground,” the decision said.

“The assailants succeeded in grabbing Lucy from Ms. Clayton’s arms. The younger women raced to their SUV, which was parked nearby, and they threw Lucy into the vehicle. Ms. Clayton got up and says she jumped into the vehicle, but was dragged out by some or all three women. Ms. Clayton then ran to the front of the SUV to stop it from leaving while screaming for help.”

The vehicle drove away, and Clayton never saw Lucy again, according to the judgment.

Fitzpatrick noted that Antonius argued at trial that she was the rightful owner of the dog, and that the “physical interactions” that occurred were not violent enough to warrant a robbery charge or conviction.

The court heard that Antonius was the person who originally purchased Lucy as a puppy, and that she had had given the dog to her neighbour in exchange for $110 some time in 2020 when she was having “difficulties” caring for the animal.

Although there was some subsequent disagreement about who owned the dog, the decision said Antonius and Clayton had not been in contact for many months prior to the robbery.

Ultimately, the jury’s conviction of Antonius meant they rejected her claims of ownership and her characterization of what happened on the day she took the dog, the judge said.

Clayton told the court, as part of the sentencing process, that she had cuts and bruises on her body after the robbery and that she experienced headaches in the aftermath of the attack, either due to being kicked in the head or stress—or a combination.

She also described the emotional toll.

“She is now fearful of leaving her home. This has in turn resulted in Ms. Clayton feeling that she cannot get another dog, since she would have to take the dog out. She feels the loss of Lucy and the resulting loneliness. Ms. Clayton says she experiences panic attacks, trouble focusing and nightmares,” the decision said, adding that the uncertainty about what happened to the dog compounded her stress.

“She believed that Lucy was dead,” the judgment said.

READ ALSO:

• Suspected thief demanded ransom, threatened to hurt stolen dog
• Dog stolen from shopping cart at Lougheed Mall
• Toy poodle returned to owner after being stolen from shopping cart

The judge rejected Antonius’ bid for a suspended sentence, opting to impose the 18-month conditional sentence order the Crown proposed.

Antonius’ refusal to return the dog was cited as an aggravating factor.

“Ms. Antonius’ clear defiance in knowing where Lucy is and continuing to deprive the rightful owner—Ms. Clayton—is serious,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

The first six months of the conditional sentence are to be served under house arrest, the decision said. Other conditions include a prohibition on drugs, alcohol and weapons, complying with orders to attend counselling, and having no contact with the victim.

Antonius was also ordered to pay Clayton $846.40 in restitution.

“Ms. Antonius, I sincerely hope that you take this sentence as an opportunity to examine your actions and come to an appreciation of the harm that you inflicted on Ms. Clayton when you clearly had other and legal means of resolving your dispute with her,” the judge’s decision concluded.