Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beyond Humanity: New Frontiers in Animal Law | (2019) 5(1) CJCCL |
ForewordHonourable Senator Murray Sinclair, Senate of Canada i ArticlesBeastly DeadVaughan Black 1 |
Article | |
| 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 | |
| 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 - 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 - 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 | |
| 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 |