|Brief Summary of Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws||Jessica Pask||Animal Legal & Historical Center||This paper summarizes the current state of Canadian animal anti-cruelty laws. It examines the federal, provincial, and municipal laws that govern and enforce penalties against those who commit cruel acts against animals. The paper also examines select cases in Canadian animal cruelty jurisprudence and compares Canadian anti-cruelty laws with their counterparts in the United States.||Article|
|Beyond Humanity: New Frontiers in Animal Law||(2019) 5(1) CJCCL||
Honourable Senator Murray Sinclair, Senate of Canada i
Vaughan Black 1
|Bates (Guardian of) v. Horkoff||1991 CarswellAlta 229||84 Alta. L.R. (2d) 236, 119 A.R. 270||
The child plaintiff was at her daycare under appropriate supervision while in the playground when she was bitten on the hand by a neighbouring German Shepherd. The dog squeezed through an unmended gap in the fence and bit the child while she was on the swings; daycare staff were not negligent in supervising the children. While the dog had no history of biting, it was excitable and barked aggressively towards strangers outside the yard; the fence was in poor repair, but the owner had not thought it necessary to use the secure dog run that existed on his property. he was found negligent for not better securing and supervising the dog.
|Bacon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ryan||1995 CarswellSask 540|| 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.