Farm Animals – Is That Legal In Canada Part IV

In all the Canadian provinces, farm animals have marginal legal protections. They can only rely on laws that explicitly or implicitly apply the federal Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals (Codes).[1]  The Codes are developed and administered  by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC).

Any action pertaining to farm animals is immune from prosecution if it qualifies as standard operating procedure within the industry, outlined in the Codes.  Below are a just a few examples of accepted industry practices per the Codes, which the NFACC paradoxically considers both humane and painful:

1. Cattle: Branding, disbudding, dehorning, gunshshot to the head (to render the animal unconscious).
2. Pigs: ear notching, ear tattoing, tail-docking, teeth-clipping, castration cause pain and distress, pregnant sows rendered immobile in tiny crates, penetrating captive bolt and gunshot to the head (to render the animal unconscious).
3. Veal calves; liquid diet, caged in tiny veal crates, gunshshot to the head (to render the animal unconscious).
4. Chicks (non-saleable): high-speed maceration.
5. Chickens: beak trimming.
6.  Spent egg-laying hens: blow to the head by means of a penetrating or non-penetrating mechanical device (to render the animal unconscious).
7. Rabbits: decapitation.

Eight provinces have incorporated in their animal protection legislation, the Codes, thus legally requiring minimum acceptable standards for farm animals.

Section 4 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Animal Protection Standards Regulations   follow NFACC’s Codes.

Section 4 of Prince Edward Island’s Animal Protection Regulations  also specifically follow the Codes.

Section 3 of Saskatchewan’s Animal Protection  Act  provides that an animal is not considered to be in distress for the purpose of establishing an animal welfare offence if the animal is handled in a manner consistent with a standard or practice that is prescribed as acceptable.  Under Part II of the Animal Protection Regulations, the Codes are deemed to establish the acceptable standards. Thus, an animal welfare offence cannot be established if a producer has complied with the standards in the Codes.

Per section 2 of Manitoba’s Animal Care Regulation, the Codes are “incorporated by reference”. Practices consistent with the Codes are specified as acceptable for the purposes of determining whether an animal welfare violation has been committed under the Manitoba Animal Care Act.

Section 32 of New Brunswick’s. Section 4 of Regulation 2000-4  states that a person cannot be convicted of an offence if their behaviour is consistent with an adopted code of practice; Schedule A adopts NFACC’s recommended Codes.  Again, the regulations exclude from prosecution the treatment of farm animals that complies with the Codes.

Generally Accepted Practices

Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario exempt “reasonable and generally accepted practices.” [2] Quebec exempts “generally recognized rules.”  The Yukon exempts “reasonable and generally accepted practices” that are “carried out in a humane manner.”    These terms are not defined in their regulations and enabling statutes.

The Codes comprehensively and meticulously establish recommended and generally accepted industry practices.  They serve as criteria in determining if an offence has been committed at the provincial level.

In conclusion, whether they are affirmatively or implicitly included in provincial legislation, the Codes are the nominal protection that farm animals have.  Enjoy your steak!

[1] https://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice

[2] Animal Protection Act, RSA 2000, c A-41; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, RSBC 1996, c 372; Animal Protection Act, SNS 2008, c 33; Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, RSO 1990, c O.36

Farm Animals – Is That Legal in Canada? Part III

  Meat Inspection Act

The Meat Inspection Act[1] legislates the treatment of farm animals in federally registered slaughter facilities.

Part III of The Meat Inspection Regulations (Regulations) sets the rules for methods of slaughter as well as ante-mortem and post-mortem conditions for the animals.

Click here for Regulations

Section 65 of the Regulations states:

“Every food animal in a holding pen awaiting slaughter shall be provided with access to potable water and shall, if held for more than 24 hours, be provided with feed.”

This means that cows, sheep or goats being transported to slaughter, can have their food withheld for a total of 81 hours: 5 hours before loading, 52 hours in transport, plus an additional 24 hours upon arrival at the slaughter plant.

Section 79 of the Regulations requires that the animal  be rendered unconscious in a manner that ensures that it does not regain consciousness before death, by one of the following methods:  a blow to the head by means of a penetrating or non-penetrating mechanical device; exposure to a gas or a gas mixture; by the application of an electrical current; or in the case of a bird or a domesticated rabbit, by rapid decapitation.  These hardly humane but legally accepted methods usually fail, leaving seriously injured and mutilated animals to suffer for long periods.

Western Hog Exchange  – AB 2014

For 2 million pigs per year, Western Hog Exchange in Alberta, Canada is their last stop before they go to slaughter.  In 2014, an undercover investigation by MFA shows pigs coming off crowded trucks who could hardly walk, being forced to move by workers, using electric prods.  Pigs are beaten and kicked by workers.  On occasion, a worker hits pigs at the back of the group with a bat even though they have no room to move forward.

Click here for news article

CFIA inspectors were on site to ensure compliance with Canada’s Regulations regarding the welfare of the animals from transport to slaughter.  The videotape shows them either failing to act when animals are being abused in their presence or absent from the area.  One inspector never instructs the employee to stop hitting the pigs.  On other occasions , CFIA inspectors actually grab electric prods for workers to use on pigs, including a pig who was unable to walk and had to later be put down.

The current federal laws, manner of enforcement and industry standards need to be dramatically replaced.

Sections 444 and 445 of the Criminal Code are uniquely focused on protecting the property interests of the owner, and are not concerned with the interests of the animal.  These sections need to be amended to reflect the interests of the particular animal.  There should be no lawful excuse for injuring any animal.  Sentencing should be similar to sentencing for injury to a child.

The Codes of Practice are glaringly ineffective.  Canada’s farming industry practices are horrific and unnecessary.   The welfare of the animals should prevail over profit and indifference.  New federal legislation is urgently needed making it illegal to harm an animal under any circumstance.  The new law {let’s call it the Animal Welfare Act] should include standards for all phases of the farm animal’s life; from birth to death (not just transportation and slaughter).  The Health Act, Meat Inspection Act and related regulations would be repealed.

I.  Companies and their workers should be made accountable by having video cameras placed where the animals are housed.  The recordings would kept for purposes of inspection by the federal  Animal Welfare Agency as well as independent animal welfare agencies.  On-site surprise visits by independent agencies would increase the effectiveness of the new law.

II.  There should be strict regulations in place governing companies that do not provide on-site slaughterhouses.

III.  There should be mandatory inspections of all vehicles at weigh stations by the CFIA as well as independent animal welfare agencies.

IV.  Trucks should be equipped with the following:

1. Water tanks.
2. Mechanical ventilation and heating.
3. Temperature monitoring systems on board to record data and have an alert system for the driver.
4. Adequate space and bedding for animals to lie down on long trips.
5. Tacographs and tacometers to record travel times, control speeds and distances.

V.  Drivers and workers who transport the animals should have proper training and certification.

VI.   Animals should not go for more than eight hours without food and water.

VII.  Beating, kicking, and the use of electric prods, rattle paddles, whips and tail-twisting should be prohibited.

For many companies, such as  Maple Lodge Farms, Lilydale, and Maple Leaf Foods,  paying fines is just the cost of doing business.  Since they have no interest in respecting the minimum standards of care for animals in their custody, they need to be incentivized.  Depending on the gravity and frequency of the violations, the penalties should range from $10,000 per offence to five years in prison without parole.

                      

The following persons should be held accountable for the offences:

1. The company.
2. The company’s employee(s) who actually committed the offence.
3. The company’s officers and directors.
4. The transportation company (if applicable).
5. The truck driver.
6. The transportation company’s officers and directors.

Two sets of charges should be allowed: under (1) the Criminal Code and (2) the Animal Welfare Act, inclusively.  In addition to discouraging animal abuse, the revenue from the violations would be used to hire more and better inspectors.

What is the likelihood of these legislative changes?  The animals farming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry with approximately 630 million chickens[2], 21 million pigs[3], 16 million cows[4].  It has a thriving lobby in Ottawa.  The factory farmers spend millions of dollars on market research and  false advertisements.  As long as people continue to buy animal products, industry standards will not change.

The simplest and fastest change starts by simply ending the purchase and consumption of animal products.

[1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-3.2/FullText.html

[2] http://www.chicken.ca/ask-us/question/5/how-much-chicken-does-canada-produce

[3] http://www.canadapork.com/en/industry-information/hog-production-in-canada

[4] http://beef2live.com/story-canada-beef-cattle-120-106614

Farm Animals – Is That Legal In Canada? Part II

 Criminal Code of Canada

Although the Criminal Code of Canada offers some protections to farm animals, criminal charges are rare and convictions even more infrequent.  Imprisonment for such crimes is atypical.

Click here for Part XI

According to section 444 of the Criminal Code it is illegal to willfully kill, wound or injure cattle.  Cattle includes horses, mules, asses, pigs, sheep and goat.

According to section 445 of the Criminal Code it is illegal to willfully and without lawful excuse  kill, wound or injure , dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.

Hybrid Turkeys – ON 2014

An undercover investigation by Mercy for Animals (MFA) revealed workers at Hybrid Turkeys, kicking and throwing turkeys, crushing their spines, and violently beating them with shovels and metal rods.  Turkeys with open, pus-filled wounds, and decaying infections were left to suffer and eventually die.  A worker casually asked the undercover investigator to kick the animals – a common practice.  In this case, the abuse was so heinous, that criminal charges were filed against Hybrid Turkeys.

Click here for news story

Chilliwack Cattle Sales – B.C. 2014

Chilliwack Cattle Sales is Canada’s largest dairy farm, and home to more than 3,500 animals. Chilliwack Cattle Sales workers were caught on videotape by MFA using chains, canes, rakes, their booted feet and their fists to viciously whip, punch, kick and beat the dairy cows, including downed and trapped cows who could not escape the abuse.

Click here for Regulations

Health of Animals Act[1] and Health of Animals Regulations deal with the handling of farm animals during transportation, such as loading and unloading, feeding and watering, length of time in transit, rest periods, bedding, and medical care for animals that become at risk in transit.  Beef cattle are transported three to seven times during their lifetime.  Approximately three million food animals die in transit each year.

Health of Animals Regulations (Regulations) allow cattle and sheep to be transported for up to 52 hours continuously with no food, water or rest.  Pigs, horses and birds can be transported for up to 36 hours.  Chicks can be transported for up to 72 hours from the time of hatching without food and water.[2]  These regulations also allow an animal to go without food and water for 5 hours before being loaded.[3]

Animals may not be transported “if injury or undue suffering is likely to be caused to the animal by reason of undue exposure to the weather or inadequate ventilation”. [4]

These regulations fail to protect animals from extreme temperatures or variations in temperature inside the trucks.  Farm animals are routinely transported in the winter during subzero temperatures in inadequate conditions, and often during the coldest times of the day (early morning, night).  Spent hens are nearly featherless after a lifetime of laying eggs, making them especially vulnerable to the cold.  These animals may experience extreme ranges in temperature during the same trip, causing deaths.

On January 18, 2012, Lilydale, one of Canada’s largest poultry producers and a repeat offender of the transportation regulations, transported chickens in –12 C weather with a wind chill factor of –20 C. 

Read more about charges

Maple Lodge Farms is Canada’s largest independent poultry company and one of the worst violators of animal transportation regulations.  On February 23, 2009, over 1500 chickens froze to death en route to a processing plant.  Maple Lodge Farms was found guilty of 2 criminal charges.

Read more about conviction

From December 2008 to February 2009, and then December 2009 to April 2010, thousands of chickens died from exposure to freezing weather during transportation to the slaughterhouse.  There are  58 outstanding criminal charges against Maple Lodge Farms.

The incidents were so grievous and deplorable that the CFIA wrote about it

Section 139 (1) of the Regulations states:

“No person shall beat an animal being loaded or unloaded in a way likely to cause injury or undue suffering to it.”

Drivers and handlers are permitted to beat the animals.  To make matters worse, the Regulations offer no definition or guidelines for beating, injury and undue suffering.  The meaning of beating, injury and undue suffering is left to the interpretation of drivers and handlers with no experience or knowledge in animal care and who trying to meet a deadline.  Consequently, they are free to use their discretion and often resort to excessive use of electric prods and other devices to get the animals to move along quickly.  This becomes especially apparent since the transportation industry runs on “just-in-time”deliveries and deadlines.

Common devices applied to the animals are:

Electric prods – Drivers are able to alter the voltage from high to low.  Electric prods are frequently pushed into animals’ vaginas and anuses.

Electric prods inside hollowed out rattle paddles – Many drivers hide their electric prods in hollowed out rattle paddles.

Whips – These are used frequently.

Tail-twisting – This method is used to move dairy cows.

Plastic canes – These canes are used to beat the animals on their sensitive parts and are shoved into animals’ rectums and vaginas.

Rattle Paddles – The paddles are used to beat the animals. Rattle paddles often have electric prods hidden in them.

“Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission–to be of service to them whenever they require it… If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men. —Saint Francis of Assisi

[1] See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-3.3/FullText.html

[2]http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._296/page-40.html#h-82 , Section 148

[3] Op.Cit., http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._296/page-40.html#h-82 , Section 138(1)(b)

[4] Op.Cit., http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._296/page-40.html#h-82, Section 143(1)

 

Farm Animals – Is That Legal In Canada? Part I

There are no federal laws in Canada specifically outlining the welfare of animals on animal farms and hatcheries.  They are not subject to mandatory animal welfare inspection by the government.  The government inspects farms on rare occasions when it receives a complaint.  Standards are set by the industry itself, and compliance is voluntary. Any oversight is conducted by the industries themselves. Consequently, torture has become standard industry practice. Beating, mutilation, intensive confinement, sickness, injury, fatigue, pain, fear and suffering are customary. In most cases, these acts of brutality are accepted industry standards.

Click here for Codes of Practice

The federal Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals govern sheep, goats, poultry, veal calves, pigs, cows, animals raised for their fur, farmed deer and elk, horses and the transportation of livestock.  Coordinated by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), the Codes outline minimum requirements with regard to animal management.  They outline standards for shelter and housing, food and water, health care, breeding, animal identification, handling and supervision, transportation, sales, yard and processing facilities, and emergency procedures.

Some industry associations have voluntarily developed their own programs to manage animal care among producers.  The Turkey Farmers of Canada, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Hatching Egg Farmers of Canada, Canadian Dairy Farmers Federation, Canadian Hatchery Federation, among many others in the food animal industry claim to be committed to the Codes of Practice and animal welfare for their respective industries.

Shortly after hatching, chicks are debeaked using a hot blade or laser. Although a chicken’s beak is highly innervated, this procedure is performed without anesthesia or painkillers.  These are accepted industry standards.

Thousands of egg-laying hens are routinely crammed inside tiny wire battery cages so small that they cannot spread their wings, walk, or engage in natural behaviors. They get trapped in cage wire, mangled by factory machinery, and suffer from open wounds without proper veterinary care. Workers smash the heads of live chicks and throw them (many of whom are still alive and conscious) into plastic garbage bags to slowly suffocate or into incinerators to be burned alive. High speed maceration of chicks is also allowed. These are accepted industry standards.

In the pork industry, piglets have their tails cut and the males among them are castrated, all without anesthetic. Sub-standard piglets are killed by being swung by their hind legs, striking their head against any nearby hard object. Afterwards, they are thrown into a pile of piglets, some of whom are still alive. Sows that are no longer productive are killed using bolt guns to the head.  The device does not always work effectively. These practices are accepted industry standards.

 Délimax Veal – QC 2014

At a Delimax  affiliated veal factory farm, an undercover investigation by Mercy for Animals (MFA) shows calves crammed into tiny wooden crates, often chained at the neck and unable to turn around or lie down comfortably.  The video shows workers kicking, punching and force-feeding milk to baby calves.  One sick calf is shown bleeding profusely from a shotgun wound to the head following a failed attempt at euthanasia.  It is finally killed by a second rifle shot.

Click here for news article

Horizon Hatchery – ON 2014

Horizon is a chicken hatchery owned by Maple Leaf Foods, one of Canada’s leading retailers of chicken.  Another undercover investigation by MFA at Horizon Hatchery, shows chicks flung by their wings and slammed into metal dividers; dead chicks coming out of a dishwasher, others burned, and drowned; sick and injured birds being crammed into macerators.

Click here for news story

Creekside Farms and Kuku Farms – AB 2013

An undercover videotape at Creekside farms and Kuku farms shows sick and injured chicks being killed by a practice called “thumping” – where a bird is smashed against a hard surface to kill it. The MFA video shows several surviving birds left in a garbage bag along with a pile of already dead chicks. The video also revealed thousands of egg-laying hens crammed inside tiny wire battery cages, workers throwing live chicks into trash bags to suffocate, and dead hens left to rot in cages with live birds still laying eggs for human consumption.

Read more

When the news broke out about Creekside and Kuku, The Egg Farmers of Canada immediately sent the following letter to their members asking them to KEEP THEIR DOORS LOCKED.  The recommendations in their letter totally contradict the fluffy claims made on their website.[1]

Click here to read the letter

The proverbial fox is guarding the hen house.

[1] http://www.eggfarmers.ca/what-we-do/animal-care/

 

Money Wins – Morals Lose

Social attitudes about animals are confusing and contradictory.  According to the law, animals are property, not persons. Yet, we treat them differently than other forms of property. We do not walk our toasters or hug our socks.

On one hand, most people regard their pets as family members and would cringe at the thought of eating them, submitting them to painful experiments, or killing them for their fur. On the other hand, these very same people continue to eat and in many other ways, use animals other than pets. Except for some countries in the Far East, it is morally and socially unspeakable to eat a dog or a cat, but it’s OK to eat a chicken or a cow. On one hand, we all agree that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” pain and suffering on animals; on the other hand, we routinely use animals in ways that are not necessary. Professor Gary Francione calls this “moral schizophrenia”.[1]

The status of animals as property has severely limited the type of legal protection that we extend to them.  The United States and Canada have laws protecting animals from “unnecessary” suffering.

The following is the full definition of NECESSARY according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1:       absolutely needed :  required

2        a :  of an inevitable nature :  inescapable

          b (1) :  logically unavoidable (2) :  that cannot  be denied without            contradiction

          c :  determined or produced by the previous condition of things

d :  compulsory

Do we really need to boil live lobsters or eat foie gras? Do we really need rodeos, bull-fighting, circus animals, fur coats, animal-tested cosmetics, dog races, horse races, hunting, etc.?These so-called animal protection laws have specific exemptions [determined by the courts] for virtually all forms of institutionalized and/or socially accepted animal exploitation: the use of animals for food, scientific experiments, hunting, entertainment, etc.

Firstly, the institution must be socially acceptable. Fine restaurants serve live lobster and foie gras.[2] Many people enjoy the lobster and foie gras.

Secondly, whenever we seek to resolve the issue of “unnecessary” suffering, we balance our human benefits against the interests of the animal(s) that will be “sacrificed”. The financial benefit derived from the infliction of pain will always prevail. Any method of pain is justified if the purpose is for economic gain. Corporate profits and losses take precedence. Money wins. Morals lose.

The result of the property status of animals is that notions of “necessary” suffering or death are not interpreted by reference to an abstract or ethically based standard of care. The law generally has consistently only prohibited conduct that cannot be justified in light of the practices within that specific industry.  As long as the particular use of the animal is considered a legitimate business practice, the acts that facilitate that usage will be considered legally “necessary.”  For example, as long as we find it morally and socially appropriate to eat animals, if the mutilation and painful killing of animals are part of a standard business practice, they are “necessary”.

In 2014, an undercover investigator for Mercy for Animals documented horrifying violence at a factory farm in Colorado owned by Seaboard Foods. Seaboard Foods is one of the largest pork producers in the country and a Walmart pork supplier.[3]

1.  The video captured pregnant pigs locked in tiny metal gestation crates unable to walk, turn around, or lie down comfortably for nearly their entire lives.

2.  Workers slicing off the tails and ripping out the testicles of piglets using dull razors and their fingers.

3.  workers hitting piglets with rock-filled gas cans to force them into overcrowded walkways and transport trucks.

4.  Mother pigs afflicted with open wounds and pressure sores left to suffer without proper veterinary care.

This type of animal abuse is considered standard practice and defended by the pork industry.

The courts will not intervene in exploitation and savagery for human purposes.  The balancing process is not fair. No one challenges the institutions of exploitation themselves. No one questions the fairness of these common practices.

So what is unnecessary cruelty? Only that pain inflicted for no legitimate purpose is unnecessarily cruel. Only those who act sadistically because they can, or who impose suffering and death outside of socially and economically accepted animal exploitation, will be found guilty of unnecessary suffering. Animal protection laws only admonish the infliction of pointless animal torture or death.

Any significant improvement in animal protection legislation requires a change in the property status of animals. A more progressive approach would be the recognition that animals have at least some fundamental rights and interests. For example, certain scientific experiments would be outlawed without exemptions. Principles would prevail over profit. Animals would have rights and interests that cannot be expunged by common business practices.  A rabbit is not a radio.

Anyone who wants to change the property status of animals must confront deeply-rooted interests and opinions supporting the infliction of pain on animals. As Frederick Douglass, former slave, stated in the context of social reform, those who desire change without confrontation are as unrealistic as those who want “rain without thunder.”[4]

[1] Gary L. Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (1995).

[2] To produce “foie gras” (which literally means “fatty liver”), workers insert pipes down male ducks’ or geese’s throats two or three times daily, pumping as much as 4 pounds of grain and fat into their stomachs, causing their livers to swell to up to 10 times their normal size. Many birds have difficulty standing because of their engorged livers. Many also die when their organs rupture from overfeeding. The casualties are accounted as the costs of doing business – an exemption to anti-cruelty laws.

[3] See http://www.walmartcruelty.com/learnmore.php#pipestone

[4] Frederick Douglass, “Letter to an Abolitionist Associate” (1853).

 

My Cat Is Not A Clock

There are three basic categories of property-real property, personal property, and intellectual property.  These categories fall under the general classification of property law.  There are three distinct categories because each has unique characteristics.  Real property is fixed in place, visible for all to see and is immoveable; buildings, land.  Intellectual property is a product of the human mind; a book, a song.  Personal property is physical and moveable; a sock, a clock, a cat.  Yes, animals are included in the category of personal property.  Specific laws are assigned to each category for purposes of accommodating that category’s specific characteristics.

As a result  of their property status, animals have very limited legal rights and animals used for farming purposes only have trivial courtesies.

Whether you support the position that all or some animals should be classified as non-humans rather than property, or you believe that greater protections should be afforded to ensure that the welfare of all animals is upheld, it is apparent that the law needs to move away from the archaic perception of animals as items of property.

Many people attach an emotional, personal value to their pets.  A strong union based in love and loyalty develops between the pet and the owner.  If your pet is killed or permanently wounded by a negligent veterinarian, dog walker or other custodian, your damages cannot exceed the fair market value of your pet at the time of the loss plus reasonable expenses (i.e. veterinary costs) – same as a boat or a basketball.  The reason for this is that personal property laws apply to your pet.  The veterinarian or other custodian is a bailee.  A bailee is a person with whom some article is left, usually pursuant to a contract (called a “contract of bailment”), who is responsible for the safe return of the article to the owner when the contract is fulfilled.  Whatever sentimental value your dog had is basically irrelevant.

Canadian courts have started to recognize that companion animals are not just things, but that they occupy a special place somewhere between a human and a desk.  Recognizing emotional distress as a ground for damages in relation to an animal affirms the relational rather than economic value of the animal.

In the 2005 case of Crichton v. Noon,[1]  the plaintiff and his small dog were attacked and injured by two larger dogs owned by the defendants.  The plaintiff was knocked to the ground and incurred minor injuries.  The dog sustained trauma to its upper jaw and had to be treated by a veterinarian.  The court awarded the plaintiff general damages in the amount of $900 for mental and emotional distress resulting from the attack on his dog which included $200 for his own injuries.  The plaintiff was also awarded his veterinary costs.  The award was later reduced to $500.

In the 2005 case of Brown v. Edwards,[2] the plaintiffs’ Dalmatian, Tina was boarding at the defendant’s veterinary clinic.  The dog escaped while being walked, ran into traffic, and was killed.  The plaintiffs were approximately 60 years of age.  The dog had been a member of the family for approximately 7 years.  The court held that the veterinarian, as bailee, had been negligent in the manner in which he walked the dog by failing to use an appropriate leash.  The plaintiffs were  awarded $3500 in damages for pain and suffering after carefully detailing the relationship that the plaintiff Brown family had with their dog.  The court emphasized that Tina slept in the Browns’ bed, went everywhere with the family, and was in fact an “important and rewarding member of the family.”

The decision was reversed on appeal, as the court concluded that the defendant had not been negligent in his actions; not on the appropriateness of the lower court’s award of damages for loss of the dog.

The 2006 case of Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd.[3] was the first Canadian decision, upheld on appeal, to award damages, in the amount of $1,417, for pain and suffering associated with the loss of a pet.  The plaintiffs boarded their dog at a kennel while they were on vacation.  The dog escaped from the enclosed play area by squeezing through pieces of the enclosure, and was never found.  At trial, the court took into account the owners’ distraught and hysterical state; the search efforts to locate the dog; the 7 ½ year relationship with the dog; Mrs. Ferguson’s inability to work; and the insomnia and nightmares she experienced as a direct result of the loss.  The court held that the kennel had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the fence was secure.  Its negligence amounted to a fundamental breach of the boarding contract.  Therefore,  the kennel could not rely on the liability waiver that the owners had signed.  The Fergusons were awarded $2527, which included $1417 in general damages for pain and suffering associated with the loss of the dog.  On appeal by the kennel, the appellate court upheld the trial decision and stated that matters involving pets can serve as a justifiable reason for awarding general damages for mental distress, pain and suffering.  The trial judge had not erred in awarding the plaintiffs damages for pain and suffering.

In the 2006 case of Nevelson v. Murgaski,[4] 2 dogs attacked plaintiff’s dog.  Her dog had been attacked once before by a dog belonging to the defendant.    The elderly plaintiff was hospitalized for anxiety, shock, and for treatment of her hand injury.  Her dog had sustained a puncture wound resulting in veterinary bills.  The court considered the plaintiff’s hand injury, her hospital emergency treatments, and state of shock.  There had been a significant disruption in the plaintiff’s family as a result of the dog attacks.  An award in the amount of $1750 was made for damages for pain and suffering and inconvenience.  The court also awarded veterinary and hospital expenses.

In MD v Dumont,[5] the Court awarded plaintiff $3,000 for emotional distress resulting from the death of her horse.

In Arnold v Bekkers Pet Care Inc.,[6] the court held that an exclusion clause in the contract limited the defendant’s liability, and that in the absence of the clause, the plaintiff could have recovered for mental distress caused by the death of her dog.

The courts are moving away from the traditional legal view that animals are merely chattel, to realizing that they play a significant role in the lives of their owners.  As more research is shown, reinforcing the human-animal bond, the courts will find that waivers and exclusionary clauses in various animal-related contracts will not apply to the case before them.  Additionally, monetary awards for pain and suffering will likely increase.

[1] Crichton v. Noon, [2005] O.J. No. 4230 (QL) (Sm. Claims)

[2] Brown v. Edwards, [2005] O.J. No. 1800 (QL) (Sm. Claims)

[3] Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd. (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 681 (Div. Ct.)

[4] Nevelson v. Murgaski, [2006] O.J. No. 3132 (QL) (Sm. Claims)

[5] MD v Dumont, 2009 QCCQ 2519, [2009] JQ No 2492 (QL) (CQ Civ)

[6] Arnold v Bekkers Pet Care Inc, [2010] OJ No 2153 (QL) (Sup Ct (Sm Cl Div))

Animals And The Criminal Code

Introduction

Part XI of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses cruelty against animals.  Animals in Canada and many other countries are treated exclusively as property by the law.  The primary objective of sections 444 to 447 is to place certain animals in a specific property category alongside other types of property.  Section 445.1(1)(a) reads:

445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;

Everyone who commits an offence under  445.1(1)(a) is guilty of;
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.

There are three primary components to the offence set out in section 445.1:

1. The accused must cause, or permit to be caused, pain, suffering or injury to an animal or bird.
2. The pain, suffering or injury must be committed wilfully; and
3. The pain, suffering or injury must be unnecessary in the circumstances

1.  Causes or Permits Pain, Suffering or Injury

As a precondition, it must be shown that some pain, injury or suffering was caused.  The prosecution has the easy burden of proving that the animal suffered a minimal level of physical discomfort.  Expert evidence can be presented to determine if the animal actually suffered.  Judges are also permitted to draw inferences from the presented facts and conditions of the case.

2.  Intent

Intent, or mens rea is more difficult to prove.  The pain, suffering or injury must be caused wilfully — or,  in the case of an owner, permitted willfully.  There is some controversy over the definition of “wilfully”.  In Higgins, the Court ruled that the accused must act in the knowledge that the act undertaken will probably cause pain, suffering or injury, and either intend or be reckless as to whether pain, suffering or injury occurs.  Section 445.1 does not require attention to a specific type of injury, but there must be some awareness that injury will probably materialize if the action is undertaken. 1

3.  Unnecessary Pain, Suffering or Injury

The prosecution must establish that the effect upon the animal was unnecessary in the circumstances.  This element is clearly part of the actus reus.  The accused’s belief of the necessity of the action, while relevant as evidence, is not determinative.  In Galloro, the accused cut off a portion of a dog’s ear to “alleviate” seizures from which the animal was suffering.   She honestly believed the act was necessary.  She was found guilty because it was clear from the evidence that the procedure was medically unsound. 2

In some cases, the question of necessity is easily answered:

Smashing a cat with a hockey stick for fun cannot be considered “necessary” under any circumstances.3  Strangling a dog because he growled is equally unjustifiable.4

Other cases are more challenging.  In Menard, Lamer J., then member of the Québec Court of Appeal, defined “unnecessary” in the following manner:

It is sometimes necessary to make an animal suffer for its own good or again to save a human life.  Certain experiments, alas, inevitably very painful for the animal, prove necessary to discover or test remedies which will save a great number of human lives.  [Section 446] does not prohibit these incidents, but at the same times condemns the person who, for example, will leave a dog or a horse without water and without food for a few days … in order to avoid the costs of a temporary board and lodging, notwithstanding that these animals would suffer much less than certain animals used as guinea pigs.  Everything is therefore according to the circumstances, the quantification of the suffering being only one of the factors in the appreciation of what is, in the final analysis, necessary.5

He continued by emphasizing that necessity had to take into account the relationship between humans and animals:

“Without necessity” does not mean that man, when a thing is susceptible of causing pain to an animal, must abstain unless it be necessary, but means that man in the pursuit of his purposes as a superior being, in the pursuit of his well-being, is obliged not to inflict on animals pain, suffering or injury which is not inevitable taking into account the purpose sought and the circumstances of the particular case. In effect, even if it not be necessary for man to eat meat and if he could abstain from doing so, as many in fact do, it is the privilege of man to eat it.6

The legal definition of necessity does not require animal owners to avoid suffering if less harmful measures would impose additional cost, and if the harm (i.e. bullet in the head) is a common practice used in the industry.  The test seems to be slanted quite severely against finding cruelty in almost any situation.  Economic need, the desire for entertainment, for sports, for meat, for cosmetics, for fur, are accepted justifications.  Consequently, the “unnecessary” test almost invariably tilts in favour of the accused to the detriment of the battered animals, except in extreme malicious and sadistic circumstances of animal abuse.  If a stricter approach were taken, and these industry-accepted acts of brutality were no longer regarded as legitimate by the courts, numerous socially accepted or tolerated activities such as factory farming would constitute a criminal offence.  Many industries would have to drastically change their business and industry practices.

In animal cruelty cases, the courts have systematically chosen to make business decisions rather than judicial decisions.  The results are morally and legally wrong.  Perhaps,  we should delegate the responsibility of handing verdicts to juries.  Juries, pooled from members of society with moral turpitude  might be more reasonable in balancing what is ethically acceptable against heinous and common industry practices.

1. [1996], 144 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 295 (Nfld. S.C.).
2. [2006] O.J. No. 2871 (C.J.).
3. R. v. D. L, [1999] A.J. No. 539, 242 A.R. 357 (Alta. Prov. Ct.).
4. Greeley, [2001] N.J. No. 207, 203 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 10 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.).
5. [1978] J.Q. no 187, 43 C.C.C. (2d) 458 (Que. C.A.).
6. Ibid. at 465.

How Laws Are Made in Canada

A bill is a proposed law under consideration by a legislature. A bill does not become law until it is passed by the legislature and, in most cases, approved by the executive.  Once a bill has been enacted into law, it is called an Act or a Statute.

A bill could have its origins in the House of Commons or the Senate.  It always starts its journey in the House in which it was introduced.  Most bills are introduced in the House of Commons.

Government Bills

Most government bills originate in the Cabinet, in which case they are referred to as as “government bills”.  Government bills are normally introduced in the House of Commons.

Private Members’ Bills

A Private Member’s bill is a bill introduced in the House of Commons by a member of parliament. The Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are ineligible by virtue of their offices.

A Private Member’s bill follows the same legislative process as a Government Bill, but the time allocated for its consideration is restricted.  Each sitting day, one hour is set aside for what is called Private Members’ Business; the consideration of bills presented by private Members.  Only 30 members become eligible, following a random draw.

All Canadian bills undergo the process below, in order to become law.

First Reading

This is a formality whereby the bill is introduced to the House.  The purpose of the first reading is simply to present the Bill for debate – it is tabled in the House and all members have a copy distributed to their office.  It is scheduled for debate at second reading (the timing and priority depends on whether it is a Government Bill or a Private Member’s Bill).

Second Reading

The main principle and purpose of the bill is debated.   At the end of the discussion, a vote is taken to approve the Bill.  If passed, the bill is then referred to a committee for further study.  If it does not pass, it dies.

Committee Stage

If the Bill passes, it will usually be sent to a committee where it is scrutinized in detail – line by line. At the committee stage, committee members hold hearings or special meetings where different people inside and outside government are asked to comment on the proposed bill.  The committee will call witnesses such as the Minister proposing the Bill, agents from the relevant department(s), experts in the field and interested parties.

Report

At the end of the review, the committee chair may recommend the Bill, recommend the Bill with amendments, or not recommend the Bill at all.  There is a debate in the House, followed by a vote on whether to adopt the committee’s report.

If the report is adopted, any amendments recommended by the committee will be automatically incorporated into the bill when it goes to third reading.

Third Reading

The bill in its final form is reprinted for the 3rd reading.  If the Bill is approved by the House at the Third Reading, it is sent to the second House (usually the Senate) for approval.

The second House engages in more or less the same process as described above (there are some procedural differences between the Senate and the House of Commons, but they aren’t important in a general overview).

Any amendments made by the second House must be agreed to by the first House or the bill does not become law.

If the Bill is passed by the second House unchanged, it is ready for Royal Assent If it is amended by the second House, it will have to go back to the first house to be approved again in its amended form (this doesn’t require another three readings – it is usually just done with a vote. However, if the amendments made in the second house are controversial, the Bill may be sent back to committee for further study.

Royal Assent

Once both houses have approved the Bill, royal assent is required for a bill to become law in Canada.  It is the final stage of the legislative process.  Once both the Senate and the House of Commons have passed the bill in exactly the same wording, it is submitted to the Governor General for Royal Assent (final approval).  It is the moment during the legislative process when the three constituent elements of Parliament (the House of Commons, the Senate and the Crown) come together to complete the law-making process.

When Does It Become Law

A bill becomes law on the date of Royal Assent, unless the bill itself states that it comes into force on some other day.  Different sections of a Bill can come into effect on different dates.  The most common way for a bill to come into force is by order in council. This means that the bill does not come into force until the Lieutenant Governor in Council (in other words, Cabinet) issues an order proclaiming the legislation into force.