Results

Displaying 31 - 40 of 63
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
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
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 - 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
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 - Northwest Territories Statutes/Nunavut - Dog Act R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. D-7, s. 1

This set of laws comprises the Northwest Territories Dog Act. Under the Act, owners may not allow their dogs to run loose and must provide them with sufficient food and water. Further, the law provides that no person shall punish or abuse a dog in a manner or to an extent that is cruel or unnecessary or drive a dog or dog team on a sidewalk situated on the street or road of a settlement. The law also sets forth the procedure for the impoundment and release of dogs. For the latest version of this Act, see the pdf.

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 - 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.

Statute
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
R v D.L. R. v. D.L., 1999 ABPC 41 In R v D.L. (1999 ABPC 41) the phrase “wilfully and without lawful excuse” found in s.446 was at issue. In this case, two individuals were charged under s. 445(a) s.446 (1)(a) for killing a cat after the cats’ owner told them to “get rid of it” which they took to mean kill it. The judge in this case found that having permission to kill an animal was not a sufficient “lawful excuse” and did not lawfully give the authority to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal. The accused was found not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 2. Case

Pages