Tepple used an Elastrator, a tool for castration owned by many livestock farmers. The testicles are tied so tightly that the blood is cut off and the isolated appendage drops off over time.

Justice Paul Megginson called the procedure an "abomination."

According to an article in the Kingston Whig standard, Justice Megginson called Tepple "willfully blind and reckless."

He said "This case is not about whether the procedure is okay, it clearly isn’t and should be banned." He said that it would be up to Parliament to specifically ban the procedure.

The Cruelty to Animals legislation passed third reading this year, as part of the bill on firearms, uses the word "unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal," with the emphasis on unnecessary. Hunters, anglers and livestock farmers had argued that without the word "unnecessary" in legislation they wouldn’t be able to hunt, fish of raise livestock.

The legislation also deals with what are normal practices. In the legislation, the term "negligently means departing markedly from a standard of care that a reasonable person would use." Clause 20 (1) of the act names identification (tagging), medical treatment, spaying and neutering as procedures where some necessary pain might be evidenced and allowed.

In the trial, two veterinarians for the crown said that in their practices a needle for pain was given before the castration occurred. The court accepted the expert opinion that this was the norm.

Tepple had admitted in court that there was some pain when the band was first put on, but her lawyer argued that there was no malicious intent. In fact, Tepple describes herself as a good Samaritan who was trying to save the dogs from being put away. The owners couldn’t keep the dogs any longer, and she castrated the two dogs because it would be easier to find a home for them.