Results

Displaying 31 - 40 of 63
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
R. v. McConkey 2008 CarswellAlta 156 2008 ABPC 37, [2008] 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.

Case
Canada - Saskatchewan - Northern Municipailities Act (dangerous animal) S.S. 1983, c. N-5.1, s. 100 - 100.09 SS 2010, c N-5.2

Dangerous Dog Laws for Saskatchewan's Northern Municipalities

Statute
Canada - Manitoba Statutes. The Animal Liability Act S.M. 1998, c. 8 [C.C.S.M., c. A95], as am. S.M. 2002, c. 24, s. 4; 2002, c.

This set of laws comprises the Manitoba Animal Liability Act. Under the Act, the owner of an animal is liable for damages resulting from harm that the animal causes to a person or to property, but the damages awarded can be reduced depending upon the contributory fault or negligence of the plaintiff. In addition, no animal may run at-large under this law. Any person who finds a dog,wild boar, or prescribed animal worrying, injuring or killing livestock on the premises of the owner or possessor of the livestock that person may destroy the dog, wild boar or prescribed animal.

Statute
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) 2002 SCC 76 [2002] 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 .

Case
Canada - Yukon Statutes - Dog Act R.S.Y. 2002, c. 59

This set of laws comprises the Yukon Dog Act. The law provides that an owner must keep his or her dog fed and watered and not punish it to an extent that is cruel or unnecessary. Dogs found at large contrary to the Act are impounded for a period of five days for owners to reclaim them. The Act also states that a person may kill a dog that is running at large in the act of pursuing, worrying, injuring or destroying cattle, horses, sheep, pigs or poultry.

Statute
Canada - New Brunswick Statutes. Sheep Protection Act R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-7, s. 1 - 6

This set of New Brunswick laws comprises the Sheep Protection Act. Under the Act, where a sheep is killed or injured by a dog, the owner of the sheep may, within forty-eight hours, notify the Minister. The Minister then appoints an investigator who reports his or her findings back to the Minister. The Minister may then recover the expenses of the investigation from the owner of the dog, and may order the destruction of the dog.

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.

Case
Canada - Ontario - Ontario Statutes - Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 1 - 19

This set of laws comprises Ontario, Canada's Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The object of the Society is to facilitate and provide for the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection and relief therefrom. The laws outline the requirements for formation and operation of the Society as well as the guidelines under which members can assist animals in distress. Section 15 provides the standards of care for keeping cats or dogs for breeding or sale. 2015 amendments include the prohibition on the sale, purchase, and breeding of orcas.

Statute
Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Statutes - Dog Act(Repealed) R.S.N. 1990, c. D-26, s. 1 - 15(2)(Repealed)

This act was replaced by the Animal Health and Protection Act in 2010. This set of laws comprises the Newfoundland and Labrador Dog Act. Under the Act, an owner of a dog must keep it safely tethered or penned up at all times unless on a leash, herding sheep, or hunting with an owner. The minister may in writing authorize a person to destroy dogs found at large in the province. Notably, a person shall not bring into or keep on the island a dog either wholly or partly of the breed native to Labrador, commonly known as Eskimo or Husky, unless he or she has obtained a permit. A person who contravenes this Act or accompanying regulations is guilty of an offence.

Statute
Whelen v. Barlow 1975 CarswellAlta 242 [1976] W.W.D. 35

Plaintiff Whelen was drunken, threatening and disorderly in defendant Barlow's hotel bar, where he kept guard dogs for the purpose of preventing break-ins and keeping the peace. After the plaintiff and friends were asked to leave the premises and not return, he later returned, making threatening gestures and was bitten on the face and arm by one of the guard-dogs. The court held that the plaintiff was 2/3 contributorily liable for his injuries, since when he returned he was trespassing; the defendant was 1/3 contributorily liable since the court held that keeping volatile guard-dogs as bouncers was not reasonable.

Case

Pages