Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| McAllister v. Wiegand | 2009CarswellOnt189 |
The plaintiff, a 55-year old woman and recent acquaintance of the defendants, was bitten on the cheek by the defendant's bull mastiff dog, resulting in a spreading infection and loss of all her teeth. The plaintiff was an invited guest in the defendant's home where she had been on 3-4 prior occasions. There was a question over whether the incident arose when the plaintiff startled the dog from sleep by petting it while bending over it, or whether the dog had just awakened when it was petted and bit her. The court found that dog and plaintiff were familiar with each other and there was nothing provocative that should have caused the dog to retaliate. Thus according to Ontario's Dog Owner Liability Act, where owners are strictly or absolutely liable for their dogs' injuries to others, the defendants were strictly liable to the plaintiff for her injuries. |
Case | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 - The Animal Protection Act | Chapter A-21.2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2018 | This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan Animal Protection Act, which was amended in 2018. Under the Act, no person responsible for an animal shall cause or permit the animal to be or to continue to be in distress. An animal can be in distress if it is deprived of sufficient food, water, shelter, or veterinary care/medical attention, or kept in unsafe or unsanitary conditions, among other things. 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 years 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. Part 3 (sections 28 to 31) of the Act outlines the provisions relating to damage or injury done by dogs and Part 4 (sections 32 to 34) deals with protections for service animals. | Statute | ||
| Canada - Federal Cruelty to Animals | Canada R.S.C. 1985, c. C46 | This section of the criminal code is the national anti-cruelty law for Canada. | 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 - Northern Municipailities Act (dangerous animal) | 2010, c.N-5.2, s.395; 2018, c A-21.2, s.40. | Saskatchewan's The Municipalities Act, The Cities Act and The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 provide the basic legislative framework for all of the province's municipalities, and give municipalities what is referred to as "Natural Persons Power." This term is commonly understood to mean that municipalities possess all of the same powers that a normal person would. Essentially, a municipality can take any action that a natural person or business could to carry out its purposes unless or until legislation prohibits an action or places limitations or conditions on an action. Northern municipalities have specific authority to declare any animal or class or classes of animal to be dangerous. Legislative provisions within The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 respecting dangerous dogs may meet local needs. | 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 |