Test 1

Question 1

Advocacy Based

Answer 1

Rights based/aligned with animal rights

Question 2

Descriptive

Answer 2

Lawyer based, neutral stance, not interested in reform

Question 3

Reformist

Answer 3

NOT conferring rights but making sure animals are not harmed unnecessarily

Question 4

Lawful Excuse (to killing/hurting)

Answer 4

Agro, consuming meat, hunting in season

Question 5

Provincial Legislation

Answer 5

Easier to obtain conviction, lesser sentence

Question 6

Federal Legislation

Answer 6

Harder to obtain conviction, harsher conviction

Question 7

Colour of Right

Answer 7

Honest mistake - animal is property, conferring rights is a slippery slope

Question 8

Deontological Theory

Answer 8

Moral theory, equal value concept, moral agents + moral patients - both have rights, one has a moral obligation, one is morally unaccountable, rights should automatically be applied to all subjects of a life

Question 9

What to obtain in order to enter a property and search?

Answer 9

Consent, right is injury, right of inspection, search warrant, direct observation of distress

Question 10

When can you take custody of an animal?

Answer 10

Failure to relieve distress after a reasonable time, environment causing distress, immediate action to remove animal from critical distress. Care agreements are required if SPCA returns animal to owner

Question 11

Issues with PUPS

Answer 11

The legislation is there but there is a lack of enforcement

Question 12

Objective Predictibility

Answer 12

The law works when people can expect a certain outcome

Question 13

Requisites on a Provincial case

Answer 13

Prove distress

Question 14

Requisites on a Federal Case

Answer 14

Prove willfulness

Question 15

Legal Standing

Answer 15

Give animals standing in court (public interest) like Escobar’s hippos

Question 16

Simple Rights

Answer 16

Easily infringed on, peripheral

Question 17

Fundamental Rights

Answer 17

Correlates with human rights, less chances of infringing

Question 18

R v. Greeley Ruling

Answer 18

Greeley was convicted because after strangling the dog until it was unconscious he continued to strangle its eventually dead body

Question 19

Elements of an Offence

Answer 19

a) mens rea - do not have to prove intent to cause suffering, standards are objective predictability + reasonable person
b) actual reus - for the CC, proof of injury, death, poisoning, etc. For PAWS, for us on legal concept and requisite of distress

Question 20

Inviable Defences

Answer 20

Unable to afford vet care, had to kill dog to save hens, killed the dog because it looked like it was about to attack

Question 21

Requisites under the Law

Answer 21

a) Duty of care to provide proof/alternative arrangements
b) only actual reus required (act/omission) + reasonable person would have foreseen the consequences
c) if caught killing the hens livestock legislation would influence this defence (agro has harsh penalties)
d) reasonable force only an excuse if unnecessary suffering is not caused
e) “owner” is broad, no proof of ownership is required under the law

Question 22

Batch Funding

Answer 22

Completely government funded (APOs)

Question 23

Patchwork Funding

Answer 23

Funded by multiple things, but creates inequalities between APO groups