Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shelvey v. Bicknell | 1996CarswellBC1131 |
Both plaintiff (appellant) Shelvey and the defendant (respondent) dog owners were guests of an unnamed third party at that party's beach cabin, where the defendants left their Rottweiler unrestrained on the cabin's deck overnight. The friendly dog jumped over the deck railing to follow the plaintiff to the beach where she was walking; the large, energetic dog bumped her legs while playfully chasing a seagull, knocking her down and leaving her unconscious. The dog had previously knocked its owner and a child down at one time due to its large size and weight. A trial judge earlier found that the defendant owners were not liable to the plaintiff in negligence as the freak accident was not reasonably foreseeable; the Court of Appeal concurred, finding no negligence. Scienter was not argued or discussed at either level. |
Case | |
| Canada - Ontario - Dog Owners' Liability Act | R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 1 - 20(4) |
This Ontario, Canada set of laws comprises the Dog Owners' Liability Act. The main thrust of the law is to establish that an owner is liable for damages if his or her dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal. Proceedings may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that the dog attacked or bitten another person or domestic animal, or if the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. A court may then order the destruction of the dog, or measures for more effective control of the dog (leash restraint, muzzling, etc.). The Act also bans the owning, breeding, importing, or transferring of pit bull dogs in Ontario, save for dogs grandfathered in before the Act took effect in 2005 (then the dog is a "restricted pit bull" subject to further 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 | |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws | Jessica Pask |
Brief Summary of Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws |
Topical Introduction | |
| 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 |
| Overview 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 |
| Brief Summary 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 |
| THE ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE AND THE EXPANSION OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE: IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE LAW PROTECTING ANIMALS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY FAIL AND SUCCEED? | Peter Sankoff | 18 Animal L. 281 (2012) |
This Article uses the theory of deliberative democracy, as developed by Jürgen Habermas and others, to suggest that public discourse is essential to encouraging democratic change in animal welfare law. The author examines the legal regimes of Canada and New Zealand to determine which country better facilitates a public dialogue about the treatment of animals. The Article concludes that, while Canada has a number of laws that ostensibly protect animals, New Zealand’s regime is much better at creating the public discourse required to meaningfully advance animal protection. The author does not suggest that New Zealand’s regime is perfect; rather, New Zealand’s model is preferable to Canada’s because it allows the public to meaningfully engage in laws affecting animals at regular intervals. In Canada, generating discussion in government about animal welfare is too often left to the whim of legislators. Due to New Zealand’s model of encouraging and requiring public discourse, its protection laws have begun to surpass those of Canada, and there is reason to believe this will continue. Encouraging public discourse about our assumptions about animals fosters hope for meaningful progress in their lives. |
Article |
