Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 63
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Friesen v. Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2008 CarswellSask 438 2008 SKQB 150

An animal protection officer received a complaint that two dogs were not receiving proper care. Officer Barry Thiessen, an animal protection officer employed by the S.S.P.C.A., observed that dogs appeared malnourished and in distress from lack of food and water. Upon returning the next day, Thiessen determined that the conditions were unchanged and the dogs were then seized pursuant to the warrant. The appellant dog owner brought an application for declaration that the officer seized dogs in contravention of an owner's rights under s. 8 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in excess of officer's authority. In dismissing his application, the court found that the warrant was lawfully obtained pursuant to provisions of the Animal Protection Act, 1999. The officer had a legitimate reason to come to property of the dog owner to investigate after he received a complaint, and it was there that he saw the dogs’ condition in "plain view" according to the court.

Case
Canada - P.E.I. Statutes. Dog Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. D-13 s.1 - 21

This set of laws comprises the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Dog Act. The Act provides that no owner of a dog shall allow his dog to run at large; any dog found at large shall be deemed to have been allowed to be at large by its owner. In addition, the owner of livestock or any enforcement officer authorized by the owner of livestock, may kill a dog that is killing or injuring the owner's livestock, except where the livestock is on property held under lease, license or permit by the owner of the dog. This Act also outlines licensing requirements for dogs as well as impoundment procedures.

Statute
Canada - Canada Federal Statutes. Criminal Code. Part VIII -- Offences Against the Person and Reputation. Criminal Negligence. R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 219 - 221

The statutory definition of criminal negligence involves doing any act or omitting to do a legal duty that shows ‘wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.’ Use of the words ‘others’ suggests that only attacks on human beings, rather than pets, livestock or inanimate property, can trigger charges under this statute. In alleged criminal cases, it is the State rather than the attack victim who lays the charges.

Statute
R. v. McConkey 2008 CarswellAlta 156 2008 ABPC 37, [2008] A.W.L.D. 3238, 438 A.R. 87

In this case, the defendants pleaded guilty to violations of the Animal Protection Act after a peace officer for the humane society found four dogs in distress due mainly to a lack of grooming. On appeal, the defendants did not contest the amount of the fines, but suggested that the court should consider the economic status of the defendants (both were on government assistance). The court found that the conduct of the defendant and the level of the distress experienced by the dogs over a long period of time was an aggravating factor in determining the fine. With regard to a Section 12(2) prohibition to restrain future animal ownership, the court was reluctant to inflict stress on the animals still residing at the home by removing them from their long-time home.

Case
Canada - Saskatchewan - Northern Municipailities Act (dangerous animal) S.S. 1983, c. N-5.1, s. 100 - 100.09 SS 2010, c N-5.2

Dangerous Dog Laws for Saskatchewan's Northern Municipalities

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
Canada - Manitoba Statutes. The Animal Liability Act S.M. 1998, c. 8 [C.C.S.M., c. A95], as am. S.M. 2002, c. 24, s. 4; 2002, c.

This set of laws comprises the Manitoba Animal Liability Act. Under the Act, the owner of an animal is liable for damages resulting from harm that the animal causes to a person or to property, but the damages awarded can be reduced depending upon the contributory fault or negligence of the plaintiff. In addition, no animal may run at-large under this law. Any person who finds a dog,wild boar, or prescribed animal worrying, injuring or killing livestock on the premises of the owner or possessor of the livestock that person may destroy the dog, wild boar or prescribed animal.

Statute
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) 2002 SCC 76 [2002] 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 .

Case
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
Canada - New Brunswick Statutes. Sheep Protection Act R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-7, s. 1 - 6

This set of New Brunswick laws comprises the Sheep Protection Act. Under the Act, where a sheep is killed or injured by a dog, the owner of the sheep may, within forty-eight hours, notify the Minister. The Minister then appoints an investigator who reports his or her findings back to the Minister. The Minister may then recover the expenses of the investigation from the owner of the dog, and may order the destruction of the dog.

Statute

Pages