Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 63
Titlesort ascending Author Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
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
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
Detailed Discussion of Polar Bears and the Laws Governing Them in the Five Arctic States Sarah R. Morgan Animal Legal and Historical Web Center

This discussion provides a description of the current threats to polar bears and how the current legislative regimes in Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia and the the United States respond to these threats.

Article
Detailed Discussion 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
Dangerous Dogs in Canadian Law Jacquelyn A. Shaw Animal Legal & Historical Center

This detailed legal discussion focuses on the Canadian legal approaches to dog-related injuries. The traditional common law doctrines of scienter and negligence are discussed, and compared with the legislative approaches of Canada's provinces and territories as well as Canadian federal criminal law. The article also discusses the similarities and differences between Canada's and the United States' incidence of dog-related injuries and some possible reasons for the differences.

Article
Canadian Animal Anti-Cruelty Legislation Charles Hall Animal Legal & Historical Center

This paper examines the substance and history of animal anti-cruelty law in Canada. In doing so, it discusses the controversy surrounding the last amendments to the existing law (Bill C-50) introduced in parliament last year.

Article
Canada's Dangerous Dog Law Jacquelyn Shaw

Brief Summary of Canada's Dangerous Dog Laws
Jacquelyn Shaw (2009)

Topical Introduction
Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws Jessica Pask

Brief Summary of Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws
Jessica Pask (2015)

Topical Introduction
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 - Yukon Statutes - Dog Act R.S.Y. 2002, c. 59

This set of laws comprises the Yukon Dog Act. The law provides that an owner must keep his or her dog fed and watered and not punish it to an extent that is cruel or unnecessary. Dogs found at large contrary to the Act are impounded for a period of five days for owners to reclaim them. The Act also states that a person may kill a dog that is running at large in the act of pursuing, worrying, injuring or destroying cattle, horses, sheep, pigs or poultry.

Statute

Pages