Canada: Agricultural Law Netletter - Sunday, January 7, 2018

HIGHLIGHTS

* A Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court acknowledged the standing of a British Columbia animal protection Association to bring a Court application to consider whether or not a British Columbia conservation officer had the authority to euthanize a bear cub under the British Columbia Wildlife Act. The Justice held that even though this authority was not expressly provided under the Act, the conservation officer did have the authority to do so long as the euthanization was consistent with the purpose of the Wildlife Act to manage wildlife. The Court considers, in some detail, the distinction between wild animals and domestic animals, and the authority of the Province of British Columbia to manage wildlife under the Wildlife Act. (Assn. for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals v. British Columbia (Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy), CALN/2018-001, [2017] B.C.J. No. 2560, British Columbia Supreme Court)

* The Associate Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the application of Zoocheck Canada Inc. for a declaration that it has public interest standing to contest the decision of the Alberta Minister of Environment & Parks to issue a zoo permit to a Zoo under s. 13(1) of the Wildlife Act (Alberta). The Court concluded that the application for judicial review did not seek to address issues relating to whether or not a license should be issued, but rather to an animal protection issue related to an elephant in the Zoo. The decision was characterized as a collateral attack on a previous decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding the elephant. (Zoocheck Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry), CALN/2018-002, [2017] A.J. No.

1333, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench)

NEW CASE LAW

Assn. for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals v. British Columbia (Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy);

CALN/2018-001,

Full text: [2017] B.C.J. No. 2560;

2017 BCSC 2296,

British Columbia Supreme Court,

G.C. Weatherill J.,

December 13, 2017.

Domestic Animals and Wild Animals -- Authority to Manage Wildlife.

The Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals (the "Association") and Tiana Jackson brought an application for an Order:

  1. Granting the Association public interest standing.
  1. In the nature of certiorari or, in the alternative, an Order in the nature of prohibition directing and requiring the British Columbia Conservation Officer Service not to kill wildlife except in circumstances permitted in s. 79 of the Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, c. 488 (the "Wildlife Act");
  2. 3. Declaring that the killing of the bear cub was unlawful.

The application was opposed by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for the Province of British Columbia (Conservation Officer Service), and Micha Kneller (collectively the "Minister").

On May 6, 2016, Tiana Jackson discovered an orphaned bear cub on the road near her home in Dawson Creek, British Columbia. Ms. Jackson reported the finding to the RCMP who in turn contacted the British Columbia Conservation Officer Service. A Conservation Officer (the "Officer") took possession of the bear cub and euthanized it in spite of having been informed that a licensed wildlife centre had agreed to accept the bear into its rehabilitation program.

On June 6, 2016, the Association filed a complaint with the Conservation Officer Service, asserting that the Officer had acted outside his legislative authority under the Wildlife Act and specifically s. 79(1) which provides:

"Destruction of animals 79(1) An officer may kill an animal, other than a domestic animal, that is at large and is likely to harm persons, property, wildlife or wildlife habitat."

On January 13, 2017, a Deputy Chief Conservation Officer issued a decision with respect to the complaint in which he stated that the evidence did not support the complaint that the Officer had abused his legislative powers and had acted outside the scope of his authority. The Deputy Chief Officer referred to s. 86 of the Wildlife Act which exempts officers from restrictions against killing wildlife under the Act when officers are engaged in the performance of their duties.

The Chief Conservation Officer subsequently responded to the complaint by indicating that although the Officer made an incorrect decision, the incorrect decision did not constitute misconduct based on a number of factors which satisfied the Officer that he had sufficient cause to euthanize the bear.

Decision: Weatherill, J dismissed the petition [at para. 60]. Weatherill, J considered the following issues:

  1. Whether the Association has public interest standing?

The Minister did not take issue with the public interest standing of the Association, and conceded that the criteria set out in Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, [2012] S.C.J. No. 45, were met [at para. 12].

  1. Whether certiorari could be granted?

During the course of the hearing, the Association conceded that an Order in the nature of certiorari could not be granted because there would be no utility in granting the Order, as the bear cub was now dead [at para. 13].

  1. Whether the Wildlife Officer had the legal authority to kill the bear cub?

Weatherill, J reviewed the provisions of the Wildlife Act [at para. 18 to 23] and the submissions of the Association and the Minister [at para. 24 to 44].

The Association took the position that the Conservation Officer did not have authority to kill animals or wildlife other than as expressly authorized in the Wildlife Act [at para.24].

The Minister took the position that Conservation Officers had broad powers to manage wildlife; that powers granted under the Wildlife Act are not exhaustive, and that Conservation Officers have the legal authority to kill wildlife when such action is required in the performance of their duties [at para. 33].

Weatherill, J observed [at para. 35 and 36] the common law distinction between wild animals and domestic animals, and the provisions of the Wildlife Act concerning ownership of wild animals:

[35] At common law, legal distinctions were drawn between wild animals, considered to be ferae naturae, and domestic animals, subject to absolute ownership as property: Diversified Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia,

[1982] B.C.J. No. 1578, aff'd [1982] B.C.J. No. 2184 (C.A.), at paras. 16-18.

Prior to the enactment of the various wildlife or "game" management statutes across Canada, wild animals were subject to two legal concepts derived from Roman law: (1) res nullius, the rule of capture and (2) ratione soli, the right of a landowner to kill and take wild animals on his land: Pierson v. Post, (1805), 3 Cai. R. 175 (S.C.N.Y.); Yanner v. Eaton (1999), 166 A.L.R. 259

(A.C.); George v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2014 NLTD(G) 106 (S.C.) at paras. 57-59, aff'd 2016 NLCA 24; Cadman v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Parks and Renewable Resources) (1988), [1988] S.J. No. 254 (SK QB), 67 Sask R. 286 (S.Ct. Q.B.) at para. 23.

[36] Given the uncertainty in ownership of wild animals at common law, and given that by virtue of owning land in their respective jurisdictions the provinces had an interest in ownership of the wildlife on their lands, enactment of the Wildlife Act was necessary to establish a framework to govern the management of animals in the province and regulate the hunting of those animals. The Wildlife Act modified the common law regarding wildlife such that its ownership became vested in the Province (s. 2(1)).

Weatherill, J also commented on the provisions of the Wildlife Act which recognized the right of people to hunt and kill animals [at para. 47], stating:

[47] The Wildlife Act recognizes the right of people to hunt and, thus, its provisions to not prohibit the hunting and killing of wildlife. Rather, the Wildlife Act regulates hunting by imposing rules and restrictions respecting who can hunt, the types of wildlife that can be hunted, when and by what methods. If a person who is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Wildlife Act and its regulations lawfully kills wildlife, ownership of the wildlife transfers from the government to that person (s. 2(3)).

Weatherill, J then concluded, at para. 54 to 59, as follows:

  1. The Wildlife Act explicitly confers certain powers upon conservation officers in the exercise of his/her duties under the Act to dispose of wildlife that has been seized. Section 94(2) provides for a conservation officer's power to seize wildlife:

(2) A conservation officer may seize wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, in a person's possession if the conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds that the right of property in that wildlife is with the government or remains in the government.

  1. Section 97.2 of the Wildlife Act prescribes what a conservation officer is authorized to do following seizure of live wildlife:

97.2 Despite anything else in this Act, if live wildlife is seized under this Act, a conservation officer may dispose of the wildlife, or have the wildlife disposed of, by returning it to the natural environment if the

conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds that the live wildlife is capable of surviving after release.

[56] Section 97.3 provides:

97.3 Despite anything else in this Act, if wildlife is seized under this Act and a conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds that the wildlife may rot, spoil or otherwise perish, the conservation officer may dispose of the wildlife, or have the wildlife disposed of, as the minister directs.

  1. I find it inconceivable that the Legislature intended to restrict the wildlife management powers of officers to kill wildlife to those that are at large and are likely to harm...
  1. I agree with counsel for the respondent that s. 86 of the Wildlife Act, which exempts officers from its offence provisions, was enacted to facilitate their ability to perform their duties consistent with the purpose of the Wildlife Act, namely to manage wildlife and their habitat. To be clear, in order to be afforded the exemption in s. 86, officers must exercise their duties in accordance with the purposes of the Wildlife Act and the legitimate policy guidelines established by government. This is in keeping with the provisions of the Wildlife Act itself which implicitly anticipate that officers may need to manage wildlife in diverse circumstances in the wilds of British Columbia far from ready access to rehabilitation centres or to the veterinary treatment that is contemplated by the provisions of the PCAA when captive animals are in distress.
  1. In my view, the management of wildlife resources by conservation officers, as contemplated by the Wildlife Act, includes the authority to kill wildlife in circumstances broader than those set out in s. 79. However, that authority is not an unlimited or unfettered discretion. Officers will not be exempted from the offence provisions of the Wildlife Act unless they are engaged in the performance of their duties as officers and their actions are exercised in accordance with the legitimate policy direction of the government.

Zoocheck Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry);

CALN/2018-002,

Full text: [2017] A.J. No. 1333;

2017 ABQB 764,

6

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench,

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.,

December 8, 2017.

Animal Rights Groups -- Standing to Challenge Ministerial Decisions -- Alberta Wildlife Act.

The Applicants, Zoocheck Canada Inc., Voice for Animals Humane Society and Tove Reece (collectively "Zoocheck") sought judicial review of a decision of the Alberta Minister of Environment & Parks (the "Minister") to issue a zoo permit under s. 3(1) of the Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10 (the "Wildlife Act") to the Edmonton Valley Zoo (the "Zoo").

The Zoo applied for a zoo permit on April 1, 2017.

On September 7, 2017, Zoocheck brought a preliminary application for an Order declaring that it had standing to seek judicial review of the Minister's decision, and to allow it to rely on fresh evidence, including expert evidence.

Decision: Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke dismissed Zoocheck's application for a declaration that it had standing to seek judicial review [at para. 22], characterized the application as an abuse of process and a collateral attack, and awarded costs against Zoocheck [at para. 23].

Rooke, ACJ observed [at para. 4] that Zoocheck sought intervention not out of a concern with respect to the operation of the Zoo as a whole, but out of a concern with respect to one animal, a 41 year old Asian elephant named Lucy which Zoocheck wanted to see moved to what they contended would be a more appropriate facility.

Rooke, ACJ also observed that a previous application for a declaration that the Zoo was in breach of the Animal Protection Act, RSA 2000 c A-41 had been struck because that proceeding was an abuse of process and because Zoocheck had used the wrong proceedings: Reece v Edmonton (City), [2010] A.J. No. 944, 2010 ABQB 538; aff'd: 2011 ABCA 238, [2011] A.J. No. 876 ("Reece").

With respect to the test for public interest standing, Rooke, ACJ stated as follows [at para. 6]:

[6] The test for public interest standing was recently described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 SCC 45, [2012] S.C.J. No. 45, at para. 2:

  1. There is a serious and justiciable issue to be addressed;
  1. The Applicants have a genuine interest in the outcome of the matter; and

3. The proposed action is a reasonable and effective way to bring the matter before the court.

Rooke, ACJ observed [at para. 7 to 9] that the decision Zoocheck asked the Court to review was a licensing provision, which was never intended to function as animal protection legislation [at para. 9] and that the question was not whether Zoocheck had a real stake or genuine interest in the elephant's well-being, but whether it had a real stake or genuine interest in the Minister's decision whether or not to renew the Zoo's permit [at para. 12].

Rooke, ACJ observed [at para. 17] that there was a more appropriate mechanism available to Zoocheck, being a complaint under the Animal Protection Act, RSA 2000 C a-41.

Rooke, ACJ concluded [at para. 18] that Zoocheck failed to meet the requirements for public interest standing and that its application for judicial review was a collateral attack

on the decisions of the Court and the Alberta Court of Appeal in Reece.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions