Animal Law

Human Rights Law
(2025) The Divisional Court of Ontario dismissed the case of the vegan firefighter
Adam Knauff for mootness. His former employer took the position that the case was moot given a settlement agreement. Mr. Knauff’s lawyers argued that the agreement reserved the possibility of judicial review and there was a live legal issue: whether ethical veganism can be considered a creed. The Court agreed with the employer that the controversy between the parties that affected their rights had been resolved and that courts should not provide opinions in response to “hypothetical or academic problems.”

Family Law
(2025) In this case, Morgana Sharp and James Richard asked the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick to determine the ownership of their dog, Majesty, following a breakdown in their common law relationship. The court found that while both parties shared ownership of Majesty to a degree, Ms. Sharpe took on a larger degree of care following the separation. In reaching a decision, Justice Doucet stated: “It troubles me to think that courts should not dedicate their valuable time and resources to determining the ownership of dogs… I want to emphasize the strong emotional connections between individuals and their beloved pets.”

Constitutional Law
(2024) In a landmark decision, Ontario's Superior Court of Justice struck down most of the province's ag-gag law, in the first case challenging a Canadian ag-gag law. Justice Markus Koehnen declared restrictions on undercover investigations at farms and slaughterhouses unconstitutional, citing violations of the right to freedom of expression. While upholding restrictions on protests outside slaughterhouses, the ruling suspends provisions banning undercover work. The decision follows a lawsuit by Animal Justice, journalist Jessica Scott-Reid, and activist Louise Jorgensen. Advocates celebrate the victory, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the food industry and the role of investigative work in exposing animal cruelty.

Estate Law
(2024) The Ontario Superior Court ordered Aliesha Verma to return a dog named Rocco Junior to Arlete Carvalho, the estate trustee and sister of Verma’s late boyfriend, Leonard Carvalho. Verma claimed the dog was gifted to her by Leonard before his passing, but Arlete contested this, seeking a court declaration of ownership. The court considered various factors, such as the turbulent relationship between the couple, evidence showing Leonard's significant financial contribution towards purchasing Rocco Junior, his designation as the dog's owner on veterinary records, and his primary role in caring for the dog. Based on the evidence presented, the court ruled that Rocco Junior was owned by Leonard Carvalho at the time of his death and should be returned to his estate.

Human Rights Law
(2023) The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied Adam Knauff's discrimination claim against his employer for being denied vegan food while fighting wildfires in British Columbia. Knauff faced disciplinary actions after expressing frustration over inadequate vegan options. The case questioned whether veganism qualifies as a “creed,” a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Although the Tribunal acknowledged non-religious creed protection, it rejected ethical veganism for not addressing “ultimate questions of human existence beyond [humans’ relationships with other animals and the natural environment] or the existence or nonexistence of a higher or different order of existence and/or a Creator.”

Criminal Law
(2023)The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador overturned the provincial court acquittal of Robert Picco on eight counts of criminal animal cruelty. Picco had been charged with neglecting four severely emaciated beagles in 2018. Despite evidence from a veterinarian pathologist describing the dogs as emaciated, starving, and near death, Judge Jacqueline Brazil acquitted Picco in 2021, arguing the Crown had not proven the dogs were “suffering.” Last year, Supreme Court Judge Peter O’Flaherty upheld the acquittal, stating that Justice Brazil’s finding that the dogs were not suffering was a factual determination, which falls to the trial judge to make. However, the Newfoundland and Labrador Appeal Court disagreed, citing errors in the previous rulings. The Court of Appeal concluded that the dogs were indeed suffering and that Picco should have known the consequences of denying food and water to the dogs, reinstating the charges and ordering a new trial. University of Alberta law professor Peter Sankoff emphasized the significance of the ruling, calling it “one of the three most important cases ever decided on animal cruelty.”

Constitutional Law
(2023) The Supreme Court of Canada ruled most provisions of the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) unconstitutional following a reference case was brought forward by the Alberta government, claiming it intruded on provincial authority. Chief Justice Wagner's majority opinion stated that the IAA overstepped federal boundaries by assessing projects beyond its jurisdiction. This decision raises concerns about environmental oversight, affecting federal efforts to address climate change, potentially exacerbating wildlife conservation challenges and biodiversity loss.

Constitutional Law
(2023) The Federal Court ruled that the Government of Canada exceeded its authority by designating plastic items as “toxic” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The case, brought by Canada's major plastic-producing companies known as the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition, sought to remove the toxic listing. Animal Justice intervened in support of the listing, emphasizing the importance of addressing plastic pollution that annually harms millions of animals.

Family Law
(2022) Groundbreaking decision about pet custody of a Golden Retriever dog called Brixton, written in the Mi’kmaw language. The Small Claims Court neatly set out the law regarding pets and ownership, including the factors to be considered when determining who should ultimately get custody of a pet.

Criminal Law
(2022) For the first time in recent criminal litigation, activists were convicted for on-farm activism. In this case, eleven activists had entered onto Porgreg pig farm in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, near Montreal on December 7th 2019. After approximately five hours of occupation, eleven activists were charged with obstructing peace officers, break and enter, and mischief. In the decision, the judge recognized the substandard conditions of the barn. However, the judge went on to find all elements of the charges satisfied, convicting the activists of obstructing peace officers and break and enter (with intent to commit mischief). The judge rejected the Criminal Code s. 430(7) defence of merely obtaining and communicating information.

Family Law
(2021) The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (BCCRT) applied the "best interests of the animal" approach in a dispute over ownership of a mixed-breed dog, Tessa. Despite the legal characterization of animals as property, the tribunal considered Tessa's welfare in determining ownership. While acknowledging excellent care provided by Ms. Ramsey-Wall, the BCCRT awarded sole custody to Mr. Poole, prioritizing Tessa's accustomed routine and well-being.

Criminal Law
(2021) A rare instance where the corporate entity has been held accountable for cruelty to animals. Here, two farming corporations were each fined $300,000 and sentenced to strict terms.

Criminal Law
(2021) Canada’s only authority from an appellate court on the principles of sentencing for criminal animal cruelty offences. Additionally, the court recognized animals as sentient and their role as victims of violence in animal cruelty prosecutions.

Criminal Law
(2021) Commonly referred to as the “Mink Trial,” Klimowicz was charged with the criminal offence of break and enter to commit indictable offence (mischief) after he entered and filmed the inside of a mink farm in Kingston ON. The judge found that Klimowicz did not commit mischief, and therefore could not be convicted of break and enter.

Administrative Law | Trade Law
(2019) The CHDC brought a complaint that the CFIA was issuing certifications for shipments of horses (to be trafficked overseas) when the shipments did not comply with the Health of Animals Regulations. In its decision, the Federal Court found that the CFIA has no duty to enforce the Regulations, and deferred to the CFIA’s discretion.

Family Law
(2019) In this Québec Superior Court case, the judge weighed the interests of two dogs, Pico and Floki, in a custody dispute between former common-law partners. Despite Mr. Marquis' emotional bond with Pico, evidence of the close connection between the two dogs led the judge to grant custody of both to Ms. Harvey, preserving their relationship. This decision underscored the significance of considering the well-being and relationships of the animals involved.

Constitutional Law
(2019) The ONCA overturned a ruling from the ONSC which found that various provisions in the OSPCA Act were unconstitutional. During the litigation, the OSPCA withdrew from enforcing animal welfare laws, and Ontario introduced the PAWS Act, 2019, which introduced a new structure for provincial animal welfare enforcement.

Constitutional Law
(2019) Canadians for Animal Protection (CAP), led by Sandra Schnurr, sought a declaration that the use of glue traps is an unlawful violation of the Criminal Code's animal cruelty provision and the OSPCA Act. CAP also sought an injunction that the major retailer reposndants not sell glue traps. The Respondant retailers successfully sought a motion to strike the Application. Justice Sossin ultimately found that CAP and Schnurr did not meet the threshold for public interest standing to bring the Application. He found (1) that the question of whether the use of glue traps violates the Criminal Code is a serious issue, (2) that the Applicants have a genuine interest, but (3) a private action with the retailers of glue traps was not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the Court. Given the finding on public interest standing, Justice Sossin made no findings on the merits of the Application.

Administrative Law | Access to Justice
(2019) The second of two leading decisions regarding the continued confinement of Lucy the Elephant at a zoo in Edmonton. Here, the applicants were ultimately denied public interest standing to bring their application. However, this case produced another compassionate dissent, as Justice Brian O’Ferrall would have granted public interest standing. As of writing this description, the issue of public interest standing is currently before the SCC in British Columbia (AG) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities, where Animal Justice is intervening.

Family Law
(2018) This leading pet custody case concerns a dog named Mya. In this case, Mr. Baker bought Mya, but Ms. Harmina claimed that because she took care of Mya, that she should be awarded custody. Although all three justices took a pure property approach, Justice Hoegg’s dissent-in-part offered some compassionate words. Hoegg JA emphasized the importance of pet ownership litigation, and would have upheld the SCTD’s order for joint custody.

Family Law
(2017) In this landmark Canadian case, Judge Cowling introduced the "best interests of the animal" approach, setting a precedent for future pet custody disputes. The case centered around a disagreement between former partners regarding the custody of their 3-year-old Korean Jindo dog, Luna. While traditional legal treatment views pets as personal property, Judge Cowling prioritized Luna's welfare over conventional property division, considering evidence of her strong bond with one party and flourishing well-being post-separation. Consequently, the claimant's plea for ownership was dismissed in favour of Luna's welfare.

Family Law
(2017) This Nova Scotia case exemplifies the relational approach in pet custody disputes. Adjudicator Augustus Richardson outlined ten factors, now foundational in the relational approach, to consider when determining ownership. These factors, including prior ownership, agreements, and other indicators of ownership, provide a framework for resolving disputes based on the relational dynamics between the parties involved.

Criminal Law
(2017) Commonly referred to as the “Pig Trial,” Krajnc had been charged with criminal mischief for feeding water to pigs on a transport truck during her activism with the Save Movement. The charges were dismissed at trial, as the judge was not satisfied that Krajnc had wilfully interfered with the owner's lawful use of the pigs. This case, as well as other unsuccessful/ongoing cases against activists are said to have prompted the introduction of ag-gag laws in Canada.

Criminal Law
(2016) Supreme Court decision on the definition of bestiality. The majority found that non-penetrative sexual activity with an animal was not criminal. Following this decision, the federal government passed Bill C-84 which amended the Criminal Code to be clean that all contact with an animal for a sexual purpose is captured by s. 160.

Property Law | Municipal Law
(2013) The famous case regarding Darwin, the “IKEA Monkey.” In 2012, Darwin found his way into an IKEA store while his owner, Yasmine Nakhuda, shopped. Passersby called Toronto Animal Services, who arrived and seized Darwin. In this case, the ONSC treated Darwin as pure property, and refused to give him back to Nakhuda, as she was in clear violation of Toronto’s Animal Bylaws.

Administrative Law
(2011) The first of two leading decisions regarding the continued confinement of Lucy the Elephant at a zoo in Edmonton. Although the application by the animal welfare advocates was dismissed, this case includes a compassionate dissent written by ABCA Chief Justice Cathrine Fraser, in which she emphasizes the importance of animal welfare litigation.

Property Law | Patents
(2002) Harvard College applied for a patent on a genetically modified mouse they created for cancer research, referred to as an ‘oncomouse.’ The Commissioner refused to grant the patent on a “higher life form.” The refusal was upheld by the Supreme Court, who recognized submissions from various animal welfare intervenors.

Constitutional Law
(2002) Jack Maurice, an inmate at the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), was previously provided a vegetarian diet because of his membership in the Hare Krishna faith. Following his renunciation of the religion he was repeatedly denied his continued requests for a vegetarian diet, citing that special diets were only permitted for religious or medical reasons. The Federal Court ruled that CSC’s policy was inconsistent, as freedom of conscience under Section 2(a) of the Charter should be equally protected as religious beliefs. The Court ordered CSC to reconsider its decision and provide Maurice with a vegetarian diet, awarding him $1,560 in costs.

Criminal Law
(1978)Another case articulating the definition of ‘unnecessary’ within the Criminal Code s. 445 prohibition of causing ‘unnecessary suffering’. Here, Justice Lamer (before his appointment to the Supreme Court) introduced a balancing test. The test asks whether the level of suffering was necessary to achieve the desired legitimate outcome.

Criminal Law
(1957) Early case on the definition of ‘unnecessary’ within the Criminal Code s. 445 prohibition of causing ‘unnecessary suffering’. The Court held that the acts of the slaughterhouse workers were necessary because the pigs had to be killed for food. This is also a case upholding the ‘industry standard’ defence for animal cruelty, as the judge relied on other slaughterhouses using the same procedures.