Results

Displaying 31 - 40 of 63
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Morsillo v. Migliano 1985 CarswellOnt 786 13 C.C.L.I. 1, 52 O.R. (2d) 319, 32 A.C.W.S. (2d) 207

The child plaintiff Morsillo was attacked and bitten by a neighbour's pet German Shepherd, which tended to 'bark savagely' at local children, had bitten once before, and was kept in a secure fenced yard and only taken out on a leash and choke-chain. The boy was playing cops and robbers with the owner's son on the owner's front lawn, while the owner's teenaged daughter was taking the leashed dog to the garage, when it escaped and attacked. No provocation of the dog was proven so the owners were found strictly liable under the Dog Owner's Liability Act (which abrogates scienter in that province) and also liable in negligence, with no contributory negligence by the plaintiff; the provincial Ontario Health Insurance Plan was entitled to recover the costs of the plaintiff's care from the defendants.

Case
Canada - British Columbia - Division 1 -- Regulation of Animals R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, s. 702.1 - 707.1(10)

This set of British Columbia, Canada laws addresses animal control. The provisions give the animal control board the authority to regulate loose animals and licensing of dogs.

Statute
R v. Shand R. v. Shand, 2007 ONCJ 317 In R v Shand 2007 ONCJ 317 (CanLII), the court examined the necessary elements required to established the “willful” mens rea component present in Canadian Federal Criminal Statute s. 429. The accused was charged with three counts of animal cruelty contrary to s.446 of the Criminal Code in relation to a dog in her care. The court found that on two of the counts that the accused was had acted "wilfully" because she was either "reckless or indifferent as to her dog's condition." Case
Bacon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ryan 1995 CarswellSask 540 [1996] 3 W.W.R. 215, 27 C.C.L.T. (2d) 308, 138 Sask. R. 297

The child plaintiff was bitten on the face by a pitbull owned by the defendants, requiring reconstructive surgery and two days hospitalization and causing permanent scarring. The dog had bitten the owner's young son two weeks earlier while he played near the dog's food dish'; they contemplated having the dog euthanized but decided against it. The plaintiff's mother had heard about the bite incident but brought her daughter of the same age as the owner's son to visit, placing her on the floor where the dog bit her shortly after. The judge held that the defendants knew of the dog's propensity to bite young children but kept it ''at their peril" (suggesting strict liability or scienter, which was not however mentioned); such fault was sufficient to make the owners 2/3 liable for the child's $12,000 plastic surgery costs, pain and mental anguish. The plaintiff's mother was held 1/ contributorily liable for letting her child visit and play on the floor near the dog, knowing of its propensity.

Case
Canada - Nova Scotia Statutes - Sheep Protection Act R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 424, s. 1 - 18(4)

This set of Nova Scotia laws comprises the Sheep Protection Act. Under the Act, any person may kill any dog which is found pursuing, worrying, wounding, killing or injuring sheep or is found straying at any time, and not under proper control, upon premises where sheep are usually kept. Within forty-eight hours after an owner discovers that one or more of his or her sheep have been killed or injured by a dog or dogs, he or she shall notify a sheep valuer who immediately makes a report in writing giving in detail the extent and amount of the damage. Where a dog is known to have killed or injured sheep, the owner on being duly notified shall within forty-eight hours cause the dog to be killed.

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 - 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
R v. Menard R v. Menard 1978 CarswellQue 25 R v. Menard (1978) 43 C.C.C. (2d) 458 The accused in R v. Menard had a business euthanizing animals by use of motor exhaust which caused pain and burns to the mucous membranes of the animals he was euthanizing. In a decision written by future Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice, Lamer J. overturned a decision from the lower courts and reinstated the original conviction. Lamer J. statements about the animal-human relationship have been influential in Canadian Animal case law. Case
Janota-Bzowska v. Lewis 1997CarswellBC1957 96 B.C.A.C. 70, 155 W.A.C. 70, 43 B.C.L.R. (3d) 352, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2053

The respondent Janota-Bzowska was an invited guest at the home of the appellant Lewises, where another guest (appellant Holtzman) had tied his Labrador dog outside; the dog lunged at the respondent, causing her to fall and break her finger. A trial court earlier found both dog-owner and home-owners liable to Janota-Bzowska under the doctrines of scienter (strict liabilty) and negligence. On appeal, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the dog had a propensity to lunge at people, or that the owner knew of such propensity, although the dog was known to chase deer. However, this was not sufficient to allow recovery under scienter. On the issue of negligence, the court also held that the dog's behaviour being 'unexpected and out of character' showed no suggestion of a risk for which the owner had failed to take reasonable precautions, so there was no negligence shown.

Case
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

Pages