Results

Displaying 11 - 20 of 64
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
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. Baird 1994 CarswellNWT 58

The defendant, George Baird, was charged on indictment that he caused bodily harm to Amelia Debogorski by criminal negligence stemming from his keeping of dangerous dogs. While the dogs self-evidently proved to be highly dangerous to the victim, there was little evidence of their prior dangerous intent simply because they ran at large. As a result, the court then found that there was reasonable doubt whether the danger was known and recognized by Mr. Baird prior to the attack. The court found that there insufficient proof to find that Baird acted with "wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.” The court also observed that while there may or may not have been civil negligence, this was not enough to sustain a conviction for criminal negligence.

Case
Canada - British Columbia - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 372, s. 1 - 26(4)

This set of British Columbia, Canada laws establishes the guidelines for establishment of individual chapters of The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The laws allow these societies to relieve animals in "distress" as defined by law. A person who wilfully or knowingly interferes with or obstructs a person in the discharge of duties or the exercise of powers under this Act commits an offence punishable by a fine of not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both.

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
Richard v. Hoban 1970CarswellNB126 3 N.B.R. (2d) 81, 16 D.L.R. (3d) 679

The child plaintiff was attacked and bitten by a chained German Shepherd after she put her arm around the dog's neck to hug or play with it; she sustained scarring lacerations of her head, cheek and eyelid that required 5 days' hospitalization after plastic surgery. The trial judge earlier held that because the dog, had two months previously, bitten a young boy on the face and ear in an unprovoked attack, the owner had prior knowledge of the dog's propensity to bite children, yet he kept the dog regardless. The owner was thus strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter. The Court of Appeal reversed this holding, with two judges finding that the boy in the earlier attack had been injured accidentally by the dog's dew-claw, rather than being bitten, so that there was insufficient notice to the dog's owner of any vicious propensity; thus he was not strictly liable in scienter.

Case
Canada - New Brunswick Statutes - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-12, s. 0.1 - 32(2)

This set of laws establishes the New Brunswick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty. Under the Act, the Minister may appoint an officer, agent or employee of the society or any other person to be an animal protection officer who shall attend to the enforcement of this Act. Where an animal has been seized under this Act, the animal protection officer shall within 3 business days notify the owner or make reasonable attempts to identify and notify the owner. A person who has ownership, possession or the care and control of an animal shall provide the animal with food, water, shelter and care in accordance with the regulations.

Statute
Fisher v. Liptak 1996CarswellAlta33

Two pet llamas owned by the plaintiff Fisher were attacked on two separate occasions by dogs, including by a dog owned by the defendant Liptak, causing the death of one llama and, two weeks later, injury to the second llama. After the first attack, Liptak's dog returned covered with saliva and blood, although it had no bleeding wounds; he suspected the dog had been in a fight or attack but did not investigate. His dog was later discovered injuring the second llama. The court ruled that Liptak's finding indications of  the first attack put him on notice that the dog had a 'vicious or mischievous propensity to attack other animals,' sufficient to make him strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter, for the second llama's injuries, but not for the first, for which Liptak lacked the requisite knowledge. Similarly, Liptak was not liable in negligence in the first attack, since in that rural area all the local owners let their dogs run at large and Liptak had no prior reason to suspect his dog would attack; the judge did not discuss whether Liptak was liable in negligence for the second attack.

Case
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.

Case
Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Statutes - Animal Health and Protection Act SNL 2010, c A-9.1

This act replaces the Newfoundland and Labrador Animal Protection Act, Dog Act, Heritage Animals Act, Livestock Act, Livestock Health Act and the Poultry and Poultry Products Act. Anyone convicted of animal cruelty or neglect may face up to $50,000 in fines or six-months jail time; a person may also face a lifetime ban on owning an animal. The text consists of 82 sections divided into 10 Parts, which include: Animal health (I); Animal protection (II); Nuisance animal (III); Heritage animals (IV); Licensing (V); Regulation and fees (VI); Inspector’s power (VII); Offences and penalties (VIII); General (IX); Repeal and commencement (X).

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

Pages