Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 $2 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both. |
Statute | ||
| Xu v. Chen | 2008 CarswellBC 1693 | 2008 BCPC 234 |
The Claimant's six-month old sheltie puppy, "Diamond,” suffered a serious limb injury outside the front yard of the family home. Claimant seeks to recover the veterinarian costs she incurred to treat the dog's injury against Defendants, the owners of the other dog that allegedly attacked claimant’s dog. The court found that there was evidence that Defendant was previously contacted by Animal Control as well as a neighbor about an incident where Angus lunged at another dog. The Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that Angus had manifested a propensity to cause the type of harm occasioned that night. Claimant was 25% liable for the incident where she left Diamond in an unfenced yard that gave other dogs access. The court denied Xu’s claim of $5500 for future medical costs for the care of Diamond because there was no evidence what these would be and the dog was currently living with another family. |
Case | |
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Dog Law | SS 2005, c M-36.1, 374-380 |
This set of Saskatchewan, Canada laws comprises the Dangerous Dog laws. |
Statute | ||
| Reece v. Edmonton (City) | 335 DLR (4th) 600; 513 AR 199; [2011] CarswellAlta 1349; 530 WAC 199 | This case dealt with the procedure the applicants used to get their claim heard by the court. The respondent City holds a licence under the Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W‑10 to operate a zoo, which houses a lone Asian elephant named Lucy. The appellants commenced this action by originating notice for an order. The chambers judge concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process because a private litigant cannot seek a declaration that the respondent is in breach of a penal provision in a statute, namely that the elephant was kept in distress because of health concerns. Alternatively, he concluded that the application should have been brought by way of statement of claim, not originating notice. Further, the chambers judge concluded that the appellants had no private interest standing, and that there were barriers to them being awarded public interest standing. On appeal, the parties raised two issues: (1) whether the chambers judge erred in denying the appellants standing to seek a declaration; and (2) whether the chambers judge erred in concluding that the proceedings were an abuse of process. This court held that the chambers judge came to the correct conclusion that these proceedings are an abuse of process. APPEAL DISMISSED. | Case | ||
| Canada - Manitoba Statutes. The Animal Care Act | S.M. 1996, c. 69 [C.C.S.M., A84] |
The Manitoba Animal Care Act sets out the requirements for animals in an owner's care. The Act allows animal protection officers to assist animals in distress. A person who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000. for a first offence and not more than $10,000. for a subsequent offence, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or both. |
Statute | ||
| Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd. | 2006 CarswellOnt 399 | 207 O.A.C. 98, 79 O.R. (3d) 681 |
In August 2002, plaintiffs’ dog escaped while being exercised at defendant-kennel’s boarding facility. Birchmount appeals from the judgment claiming the court applied the wrong standard of care, and that the court erred in law in awarding the plaintiffs damages for pain and suffering. The reviewing court found that the evidence would likely have led to the same conclusion regardless of whether a “bailment” standard was used. Further, this court was satisfied that the trial judge did not err in law or in fact in making findings and in awarding general damages where there was evidence that the plaintiffs experienced pain and suffering upon learning of the dog’s escape. |
Case | |
| Canada - Saskatchewan - The Animal Protection Act | S.S. 1999, c. A-21.1, s. 1 - 28 |
This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan Animal Protection Act. Under the Act, no person responsible for an animal shall cause or permit the animal to be or to continue to be in distress. The Act also outlines the powers of humane societies to rescue animals in distress and then sell, give away, or euthanize such animals if the owners cannot be located. A person who contravenes the Act is guilty of an offence with a fine of not more than $25,000, to imprisonment for not more than two months or to both for a first offence; Further, in addition to any other penalty imposed, if a person responsible for an animal is found guilty, the court may make an order prohibiting that person from owning or having custody or control of any animal for a period specified by the court. Section 20 of the Act outlines the provisions relating to damage or injury done by dogs. |
Statute | ||
| Canada - New Brunswick Provincial Dog Regulations - N.B. Reg. 84-85 | Agency Citation |
In this province the main legislation governing dog husbandry and the penalties for dog misbehaviour or running at large are in the form of regulations pursuant to the provincial Municipalities Act. |
Administrative | ||
| Canada - New Brunswick Statutes - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-12, s. 0.1 - 32(2) |
This set of laws establishes the New Brunswick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty. Under the Act, the Minister may appoint an officer, agent or employee of the society or any other person to be an animal protection officer who shall attend to the enforcement of this Act. Where an animal has been seized under this Act, the animal protection officer shall within 3 business days notify the owner or make reasonable attempts to identify and notify the owner. A person who has ownership, possession or the care and control of an animal shall provide the animal with food, water, shelter and care in accordance with the regulations. |
Statute | ||
| Montier v. Hall | 2002 CarswellAlta 156 | 2002 ABQB 70, 314 A.R. 299 |
This is a Provincial Court Civil Claims appeal from an award to plaintiffs/respondents for $865.00 in veterinary expenses as against defendant/appellant. This matter arose out of the sale of a black female Belgian Sheepdog that was eventually euthanized by the respondents at four months of age, two months after it was purchased due to serious hereditary defects. The purchase agreement signed by respondents warranted the puppy against serious hereditary defects or illness until 25 months of age, but limited the damages to replacement of the puppy with another puppy. In affirming the award of damages, this court found that the contract does not specifically exclude compensation for veterinary expenses or for consequential damages; hence, it does not exclude liability by the supplier for the purchaser's veterinary expenses incurred as a result the defective dog. |
Case |