|Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents)||2002 SCC 76|| 4 S.C.R. 45||
The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled “transgenic animals”. In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the "oncomice" are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non‑human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s decision. At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held the appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of “invention” in s. 2 of the Patent Act .
|Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Animals||S.S. 2005, c. M-36.1, s. 374 - 380||This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan, Canada dangerous animal laws. Under the Act, any person who owns an animal for the purpose of fighting, or trains, torments, badgers, baits or otherwise uses an animal for the purpose of causing or encouraging the animal to make unprovoked attacks on persons or domestic animals is guilty of an offence. In addition, a peace officer or designated officer may destroy any animal that he or she finds injuring or viciously attacking a person or a domestic animal. The Act outlines the actions that result in an animal being declared dangerous (i.e., chased a person in a vicious or threatening manner, bit a person or domestic animal without provocation, etc.) and the procedure to declare such an animal dangerous.||Statute|
|Canada - Nova Scotia Statutes - Animal Protection Act||SNS 2008, c 33||
This set of laws replaces the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act. The Act outlines the establishment and powers of the Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the Act also provides that no person shall cause an animal to be in distress. First andsecond time violaters face up to $5,000 in fines and in default of payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both fine and imprisonment. A third offense would result in a fine of up to $10,000 and in default of payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both fine and imprisonment. The courts can also prohibit the ownership of animals and may impose a lifetime ban on owning animals.
|Tulloch v. Melnychuk||1998 CarswellAlta 573||
In this case, the Plaintiff seeks damages from the Defendants for trespass to chattels. She alleged that the Defendants shot her valuable dog. The Defendants countered that they were justified in shooting the dog since it was on their land chasing and worrying their cattle contrary to the Stray Animals Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-23, Part 3. Here, the court found credible the testimony from the defendant cow-operator that the dog was chasing a lame cow to the point where the cow was exhausted. The action by plaintiff was dismissed.
|Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Dog Law||SS 2005, c M-36.1, 374-380||This set of Saskatchewan, Canada laws comprises the Dangerous Dog laws.||Statute|
|Canada - Alberta - Dangerous Dogs Act||R.S.A. 2000, c. D-3, s. 1||This set of laws comprises the Alberta, Canada Dangerous Dog Act. Under the Act, a justice may take a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person, or that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control. In either circumstance, if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it. Additionally, a person who fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5 for each day during which the person fails to comply with the order.||Statute|
|Whelen v. Barlow||1975 CarswellAlta 242|| W.W.D. 35||
Plaintiff Whelen was drunken, threatening and disorderly in defendant Barlow's hotel bar, where he kept guard dogs for the purpose of preventing break-ins and keeping the peace. After the plaintiff and friends were asked to leave the premises and not return, he later returned, making threatening gestures and was bitten on the face and arm by one of the guard-dogs. The court held that the plaintiff was 2/3 contributorily liable for his injuries, since when he returned he was trespassing; the defendant was 1/3 contributorily liable since the court held that keeping volatile guard-dogs as bouncers was not reasonable.
|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.
|Canada - B.C. - B.C. Statutes - Vancouver Charter. Part XIV -- Nuisances||S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, s. 323 - 324(A)3||These British Columbia, Canada laws provide the laws for preventing, abating, and prohibiting nuisances, which include dangerous dogs. The laws describe what constitutes a dangerous dog and what actions may be taken with a dangerous dog. The set also contains provisions that allow for the creation of by-laws to control and impound animals.||Statute|
|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.