Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 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 | ||
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws | Jessica Pask |
Brief Summary of Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws |
Topical Introduction | ||
| 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 |
