Under the Chinese zodiac, years are named after animals. Under that custom the year of the dog does not occur until 2006, but in legal circles, dogs certainly made the news.
In June this year, a Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench judge had to deal with the case of a handsome (in the words of the judgment) Siberian husky named Diego who made the mistake of chasing a cat.
In the judge’s words the case highlighted the “tension which exists between dogs and cats.” Diego was out for a run, free of any leash, with his owners. Upon seeing a tethered cat Diego charged it.
Read Also
Starting a small business comes with legal considerations
This article sets out some of the legal considerations to start a business to sell home-grown product, such as vegetables, herbs, fruit or honey.
The cat ran to the end of its leash and then into the house. Diego wisely stopped at the steps. Nevertheless, his actions brought the weight of the law on him and his owners. His owner was charged with owning a dog “that, without provocation, attacked, assaulted, wounded, bit, injured or killed a person or domestic animal” contrary to the City of Regina’s dangerous dog bylaw. The justice of the peace hearing the case fined the owner and ordered Diego muzzled whenever he was out.
But on appeal of the fine and muzzling order, the judge showed sympathy. He noted: “In the result, Diego, the dog, is sentenced without hope of parole to wearing a muzzle whenever he leaves the owner’s lot. … It is a life sentence brought on by chasing, once, a tethered cat across a front lawn. … Such a determination seems cruel and unusual.”
The judge allowed the appeal, saying that it was not established that the dog was menacing in his brief chase of the cat.
At the same time, an Alberta Queen’s Bench judge pondered the issue of support for Crunchy, a large St. Bernard. Crunchy’s owner’s, Barbara Boschee and Kenneth Duncan, had lived together for six years in a common law relationship. When they split, Crunchy stayed with Barbara because Kenneth was unable to find accommodation that would allow such a large dog. Barbara applied to court for support for both herself and Crunchy. For Crunchy she sought $200 a month retroactive to the time of separation. Kenneth offered $25 a month.
The judge noted that “a St. Bernard dog obviously costs more to maintain and feed than the usual smaller variety” and in an interim order concluded that $200 a month was a reasonable amount to look after Crunchy. The order was retroactive to the time of separation. A CanWest News Service report noted that the court order “is believed to be one of the first of its kind in Canada, if not North America.”
Don Purich is a former practising lawyer who is now involved in publishing, teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek other opinions and/or personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.
