Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 63
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
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
Montier v. Hall 2002 CarswellAlta 156 2002 ABQB 70, 314 A.R. 299

This is a Provincial Court Civil Claims appeal from an award to plaintiffs/respondents for $865.00 in veterinary expenses as against defendant/appellant. This matter arose out of the sale of a black female Belgian Sheepdog that was eventually euthanized by the respondents at four months of age, two months after it was purchased due to serious hereditary defects. The purchase agreement signed by respondents warranted the puppy against serious hereditary defects or illness until 25 months of age, but limited the damages to replacement of the puppy with another puppy. In affirming the award of damages, this court found that the contract does not specifically exclude compensation for veterinary expenses or for consequential damages; hence, it does not exclude liability by the supplier for the purchaser's veterinary expenses incurred as a result the defective dog.

Case
Canada - Federal Cruelty to Animals Canada R.S.C. 1985, c. C46

This section of the criminal code is the national anti-cruelty law for Canada.

Statute
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

Pages