Animal Welfare

Pet Travelling Made Easy – Pet Airways Take Off!

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare, Business Development by Admin | No Comments Friday, July 17, 2009

Generally I only blog about law related stuff. However, a story about Pet Airways piqued my attention, and I’d like to share with my readers.

Billed as the first pet-friendly commercial airline, Pet Airways is a flight operator that flies pets in the main cabin, rather than in the cargo area.

  • How it works:

You drop off your pet at the airport “pet lounge” and then check-in for your pet. Your pet gets to hangout at the lounge and takes a potty break before the flight. Your pet then gets boarded into one of the secured pet carriers (provided free of charge) in the main cabin. a pet attendant checks on your pet every 15 minutes or so. The plane is well-lit and well-ventilated. Upon arrival your pet can be picked up at the destination airport’s pet lounge.

  • What if the flight is delayed or canceled?

Like human air travel, delays and cancellations happen. If the flight is delayed shortly, your pet gets to hangout on the plane or in the lounge. If there’s a long delay, your pet is board at the nearest affiliated pet resort at the company’s expense. Just like human travel.

  • Meal and entertainment

The “pawssengers” all face the aisle, so they get to watch their neighbours for entertainment.(Dogs, cats and others are put in separate areasqueasy from motion sickness. In fact, the company vet suggests that you don’t feed your pet four hours prior to flight.

However, if the pet attendant sees that pawsengers badly need some water or something to chew on, he or she will give them a little to make them feel better.

  • Can I fly with my pet?

No. This is a pet-only airline.

  • What animals are restricted?

Humans.

For more information, visit the website at www.petairways.com.

***

Although the operator is currently U.S. based with few restrictions (other than human passengers), I remind readers that the Province of Ontario restricts or prohibits the importation of certain animals and endangered species, including pit bulls.

Would be passengers (or rather, “pawssengers”) should have their human guardians comply with local animal importation restrictions.

Note: This is not an endorsement. (Although it sounds almost like one.)

Tagged , , , , ,

Veterinary Euthanasia

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Thursday, March 19, 2009

Veterinary euthanasia is the fancy name for putting an animal down. It refers to the practice of deliberately ending the life of an animal, using humane methods.

The decision to euthanize a pet is often gut-wrenching, even if it’s medically necessary. Veterinarians who perform or oversee euthanasia must be sensitive to the pet owner’s stress level while discussing the topic.

As euthanasia is often one of several options available in treating an animal, the veterinarian should explain to the client (pet owner) associated options with all costs involved, with clear distinctions made regarding what is best for the animal.

If the veterinarian sees no recourse other than euthanasia, the option should be communicated to the client with sensitivity and compassion. If the owner refuses to euthanize the animal and the animal will suffer to the point that a report to the Ontario SPCA needs to be made, the veterinarian should advise the owner and where feasible, make such a report.

Since euthanasia is a procedure that cannot be reversed, it’s recommended that the veterinarian obtain informed consent from the client beforehand. After the decision is made, euthanasia should take place as soon as possible in order to reduce pain, fear, and anxiety in the animal.

Finally, a veterinarian is not obliged to offer euthanasia as an option. In many cases, veterinarians may refuse to perform euthanasia if it is not medically necessary - for example, when an animal is no longer wanted as a pet. In that situation, the owner should be given options, such as surrendering the animal to a shelter or to the practice.

Ssee the College of Veterinarians of Ontario Guidelines, “Veterinary Euthanasia” (2008), online at www.cvo.org/uploadattachments/Euthanasia.pdf

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Petty Fine for Abandoning Dog Sparks Public Outrage

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Wednesday, March 4, 2009

The Toronto Star reported this story today about a dog that was left in a van without food or water in freezing temperature for 19 days.

The 12-year-old miniature poodle, Michou, was left abandoned in his owner’s van at the Burlington International Airport in Vermont as his owner flew off to Quebec over the Christmas and the New Year’s holidays. The dog lost half of its body weight and was near death when he was rescued.

As heinous as the incident was, it was the punishment of the owner that sparked a public outrage. The owner was fined $100, as the police could not find evidence regarding the owner’s intent to harm the animal.

As it happens, Vermont has one of the most stringent anti-cruelty law in the U.S. Under Vermont law, a conviction of aggravated animal cruelty could lead to a fine of $7,500.00 or imprisonment up to 5 years.+

Coincidentally, March 1, 2009, marks a new era for anti-cruelty law in Ontario as the Provincial Animal Welfare Act (an act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, see my January 18, 2009 blog “Ontario’s Enhanced Anti-Cruelty Law” ) takes effect. Under this new legislation, a person causing an animal to be in distress may be fined up to $60,000, or be imprisoned for up to two years, or both.

Individuals convicted of causing an animal to be in distress could also face a lifetime ban from owning, having custody of, taking care of, or living with any animals.

I welcome the new and enhanced anti-cruelty law.

If you know an animal is being abused or treated with cruelty, please call the local humane society or the police. Your call may save a life.

+ Vermont Statutes, § 352a. Aggravated cruelty to animals.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Pet Owners Buying a Condo

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Buying a condo can be a challenge for many, yet it can be a bigger challenge for buyers with pets. To many homebuyers, pets in condominium units are a source of confusion and often contention.

Today I’d like to talk about what pet owners (or “pet parents,” as some call themselves) need to watch out for when considering buying a condominium unit.

When surveying the market, most people start with MLS listings. On the MLS listing summary, one item of View this Postthe form is devoted to pets. It may show “permitted,” “restricted,” or “not allowed.”

If pets are “restricted,” things get more complicated, as the rules tend to be convoluted and confusing.

I recently came across a case where the condominium corporation’s declaration stipulates that each unit is permitted

“one cat, or one dog, given that the dog is under 20 lbs and does not exceed 24 inches in height, or a bird, if it is not of an endangered species, or small domestic, tamed animals excluding turtles.”

After reading this paragraph, I couldn’t help but wonder, “What if my dog gets fat?”

Even if the summary indicates that pets are “permitted,” I suggest not relying on the listing summary entirely.

These listings are often filled out by real estate agents who rely exclusively on the information provided by the sellers. Therefore, mistakes are not uncommon, especially if the seller doesn’t own a pet and is therefore unfamiliar with the rules. The binding authority on the pet policy of a specific condominium rests in its declaration or by-laws.

Unfortunately, you won’t know exactly what the pet policy of your dream condo is until you make an offer.

After you make an offer, the seller has a short period of time to produce a condominium status certificate. Depending on the wording of your offer, you may be able to get out of the deal if you find your pet is not allowed in the building.

If you’re viewing the property in person, I suggest you simply ask the security personnel whether your pet would be allowed. Generally speaking, a condominium’s security staff are knowledgeable of pet issues (since they’re the ones taking the complaints).

Finally, before you commit yourself to the deal, you should specifically inquire about the pet policy with your lawyer and obtain an affirmative answer to your question.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Dog Owners’ Liabilities

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Wednesday, January 28, 2009

In my previous blog “Ontario’s Enhanced Anti-Cruelty Law” (posted January 18, 2009), I mentioned several new prohibitions under the new law, including causing animals distress and owning an animal fighting structure or equipment. Today I’d like to talk about liabilities specific to dog owners.

Under the Dog Owners Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. D16, dog owners are liable “for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal.”

Unlike other civil liabilities, the dog owner’s liabilities are not dependent on his or her negligence. Rather, the owner is liable regardless of the offending dog’s history and propensity to aggression.+

Although the offending dog’s owner is prima facie (meaning, at first sight) liable for injuries caused by the dog, in determining damages the court “shall reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree,
if any, to which the fault or negligence of the plaintiff caused or
contributed to the damages.”*

For example, if someone provoked your dog into biting him or her, you would be liable for the damages or injuries done to the victim, even if the victim was literally poking your dog in the eye with a stick. At the same time, if the court finds that the victim-plaintiff is partially or wholly at fault, the compensation award will be reduced accordingly.

Some may ponder, “What about guard dogs?” If a guard dog bites a burglar who is trespassing, is the owner liable?

The short answer is no.

Section 3(2) of the Act states, “Where a person is on premises with the intention of committing, or in
the commission of, a criminal act on the premises and incurs damage caused by being bitten or attacked by a dog, the owner is not liable … unless the keeping of the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of the protection of persons or property.”

+s. 2(1)

*s. 2(3)

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Ontario’s Enhanced Anti-Cruelty Law

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Sunday, January 18, 2009

In Ontario, 2008 was a good year for animals and people who care about them.

Bill 50 2008 (Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008: An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of  Cruelty to Animals Act) was passed in the provincial legislature and received Royal Assent on November 27, 2008. The new (and improved) law will come into force upon the Lieutenant Governor’s proclamation.

In particular, the following conducts are now prohibited under the amended Ontario SPCA Act:

  1. Causing animals to be in distress
  2. Permitting an animal to be in distress by an owner or a custodian
  3. Animal fighting
  4. Owning animal fighting equipment or structures
  5. Harming law enforcement animals (e.g. police dogs, K-9 units)

Under the new law, the Ontario SPCA is granted authority to seize animals in distress that are in plain view. It can now also enter into any building or place used for animal exhibit, entertainment, boarding, hire or sale (such as a petting zoo) without a warrant to carry on an inspection.

Upon the removal or seizure of an animal, the Ontario SPCA may keep the animal if ordered by a provincial judge or a justice of the peace. The owner or custodian is liable to the SPCA for costs and expenses in caring for the animal, regardless of whether the animal is ordered to be returned or kept in the custody of the Ontario SPCA.

If you know an animal that is being abused or neglected or is in distress, please contact

  • for non-emergencies: the Ontario SPCA Provincial Office at 1-888-ONT-SPCA (668-7722),
  • the farm animal care helpline at 519-837-1326 for owners who are unable or unwilling to care for their farm animals,
  • your local humane society (Toronto Humane Society at 416-392-2273 or 416-392-9992, then press “0″), or
  • your local police: 9-1-1 if the situation is urgent (local police officers can exercise the power of an SPCA inspector).

If you do not wish to disclose your ID when reporting, you can call CrimeStoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS.

Your call can save a life.

Do not email - emails can go unnoticed for days and it may be too late!

For more information, please visit the following websites:

Ontario SPCA

Toronto Humane Society

Tagged , , , , , , ,

“No Pet” Condos vs. “No Pet” Provisions

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Thursday, January 8, 2009

A while ago I posted two blogs (October 14 and September 30, 2008) on “no pet” provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act, saying that tenants in Ontario generally have the right to own pets in their rental, units subject to certain limitations. These limitations generally concern interference of the enjoyment of others in the building or issues of safety or health.

Beyond the previously discussed limitations, if the rental unit is part of a condominium building, the tenant’s right to own pets may also be restricted by the declaration of the condominium corporation. The two cases below provide some insight to the limitations of pet ownership in condo buildings.

In one case+, a couple moved into a rented condominium apartment with their 16-year-old miniature poodle. The declaration of this particular condominium corporation prohibits pets in the building.

Upon the discovery of the dog living in the building, the condo board brought an application before the court, seeking a compliance order against the tenants.

The tenants contended that they had the right to keep their dog in the unit under the Residential Tenancies Act, which stipulates, “No injunction… shall be granted against a tenant based on the provisions of an agreement respecting the presence of an animal in the premises,” subject to certain conditions.

Unfortunately for the tenants, the judge decided that although that section of the Act applies to the tenancy, the RTA only prohibits an order “based on the provisions of an agreement.” Because the order sought by the condo board was based on the declaration of the condominium corporation, and not an agreement, the compliance order was accordingly granted.

In another case*, coincidentally involving the same condominium corporation, the condo board sought to enforce the “no pet” provisions of the declaration against the owner of an indoor apartment cat after the cat had lived in the unit for 10 years. The cat was “invisible” to other unit holders during this 10-year period. The condo board decided to step-up enforcement of the “no-pet” policy only in 2004.

Both the hearing judge and the Court of Appeal declined to grant the order because it would be unfair to enforce the policy against the owner of an indoor cat, particularly after the cat had been living in the unit for 10 years.

+ MTCC No. 949 v. Irvine [1992] O.J. No. 1598

* MTCC No. 949 v. Staib (2005), 205 O.A.C. 15

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Is That Legal…? isthatlegal.ca

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare, Blog Review by Admin | No Comments Friday, November 28, 2008

Recently I came across a fantastic site called www.isthatlegal.ca. It’s filled with well-written, instructive articles about laws in Canada and Ontario.

I had the pleasure to speak with the author of the site, Simon Shields, on the phone today. Simon is an experienced lawyer practising in Toronto, Ontario. He practises in the area of administrative law and civil litigation.

What interests me the most is Simon’s work on animal welfare. If you’re a pet owner or someone who cares about animals’ well-being, you should read his articles on “Animals and the Criminal Law”, and “Dog and Cat Control Law.” The latter article features a chapter dedicated to cats. I believe that any cat parent would find the chapter informative.

Of course, this informative site goes far beyond laws on animal welfare. Simon also has expertise in labour and employment law, administrative law, civil litigation (particularly in Small Claims Court), and constitutional law. The articles are written for non-lawyers and are easy to understand.

You can also find the link to isthatlegal.ca on the main page, under PSWRecommends.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Page 2 of 212