|R. v. McConkey||2008 CarswellAlta 156||2008 ABPC 37,  A.W.L.D. 3238, 438 A.R. 87||
In this case, the defendants pleaded guilty to violations of the Animal Protection Act after a peace officer for the humane society found four dogs in distress due mainly to a lack of grooming. On appeal, the defendants did not contest the amount of the fines, but suggested that the court should consider the economic status of the defendants (both were on government assistance). The court found that the conduct of the defendant and the level of the distress experienced by the dogs over a long period of time was an aggravating factor in determining the fine. With regard to a Section 12(2) prohibition to restrain future animal ownership, the court was reluctant to inflict stress on the animals still residing at the home by removing them from their long-time home.
|Canada - Ontario - Ontario Statutes - Animals for Research Act||R.S.O. 1990, c. A.22 s.1 -||This set of laws comprises the Ontario Animals for Research Act. The law requires an operator to be licenced; the licence may be revoked or suspended where, among other things, the operator commits animal cruelty or neglect. Research facilities under this act are also subject to registration. Notably, the Act provides that every animal used in a registered research facility in any experiment that is likely to result in pain to the animal shall be anaesthetized so as to prevent the animal from suffering unnecessary pain. Further, the operator of a research facility shall provide analgesics adequate to prevent an animal from suffering unnecessary pain during the period of its recovery from any procedure used in an experiment.||Statute|
|Canada - Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act||S.N.S. 1998, c. 18, s. 174 - 179||
Certain sections (ss.175-179) of this Nova Scotia statute deal with dog ownership, and the consequences for failing to control a dog, or harm to people or property.
|Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents)||2002 SCC 76|| 4 S.C.R. 45||
The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled “transgenic animals”. In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the "oncomice" are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non‑human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s decision. At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held the appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of “invention” in s. 2 of the Patent Act .
|Beyond Humanity: New Frontiers in Animal Law||(2019) 5(1) CJCCL||
Honourable Senator Murray Sinclair, Senate of Canada i
Vaughan Black 1
|Canada - British Columbia - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act||R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 372, s. 1 - 26(4)||This set of British Columbia, Canada laws establishes the guidelines for establishment of individual chapters of The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The laws allow these societies to relieve animals in "distress" as defined by law. A person who wilfully or knowingly interferes with or obstructs a person in the discharge of duties or the exercise of powers under this Act commits an offence punishable by a fine of not more than $2000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both.||Statute|
|Canada - Alberta - Alberta Statutes. Animal Protection Act||R.S.A. 2000, c. A-41, s. 1||This set of laws from Alberta, Canada comprises the Animal Protection Act. The Act states that no person shall permit or cause an animal to be in distress. Specifically, a person who owns or is in charge of an animal must ensure that the animal has adequate food and water, must provide the animal with adequate care when the animal is wounded or ill, and must provide the animal with reasonable protection from injurious heat or cold as well as adequate shelter, ventilation and space. A person who contravenes this Act is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $20,000 in addition to restrictions on owning animals for a specified period of time. The Act also outlines the power of both peace officers to take animals in distress into their custody and humane societies to provide care for seized animals.||Statute|
|Canada - Yukon Statutes. Animal Protection Act||R.S.Y. 2002, c. 6, s. 1 - 14||This set of laws comprises the Yukon, Canada Animal Protection Act. The Act provides that no person shall cause or allow an animal to be in distress. Any person who contravenes this Act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500 and, in default of payment, to imprisonment up to six months, or to both fine and imprisonment. A judge may also prohibit a person convicted of an offence under the Act from owning an animal or from having charge of an animal for any specified time period. The Act also outlines the power of peace officers to seize animals in distress as well as those powers of humane societies to provide care for such animals.||Statute|
|Tulloch v. Melnychuk||1998 CarswellAlta 573||
In this case, the Plaintiff seeks damages from the Defendants for trespass to chattels. She alleged that the Defendants shot her valuable dog. The Defendants countered that they were justified in shooting the dog since it was on their land chasing and worrying their cattle contrary to the Stray Animals Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-23, Part 3. Here, the court found credible the testimony from the defendant cow-operator that the dog was chasing a lame cow to the point where the cow was exhausted. The action by plaintiff was dismissed.
|Canada - Alberta - Service Dogs Act||S.A. 2007, c. S-7.5||This Alberta, Canada law provides that no person shall deny to any person the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted, or discriminate against any person for the reason that the person is a disabled person accompanied by a service dog or a certified dog-trainer accompanied by a dog in training. The law goes into effect January of 2009.||Statute|