Test 1 Flashcards
Advocacy Based
Rights based/aligned with animal rights
Descriptive
Lawyer based, neutral stance, not interested in reform
Reformist
NOT conferring rights but making sure animals are not harmed unnecessarily
Lawful Excuse (to killing/hurting)
Agro, consuming meat, hunting in season
Provincial Legislation
Easier to obtain conviction, lesser sentence
Federal Legislation
Harder to obtain conviction, harsher conviction
Colour of Right
Honest mistake - animal is property, conferring rights is a slippery slope
Deontological Theory
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
What to obtain in order to enter a property and search?
Consent, right is injury, right of inspection, search warrant, direct observation of distress
When can you take custody of an animal?
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
Issues with PUPS
The legislation is there but there is a lack of enforcement
Objective Predictibility
The law works when people can expect a certain outcome
Requisites on a Provincial case
Prove distress
Requisites on a Federal Case
Prove willfulness
Legal Standing
Give animals standing in court (public interest) like Escobar’s hippos
Simple Rights
Easily infringed on, peripheral
Fundamental Rights
Correlates with human rights, less chances of infringing
R v. Greeley Ruling
Greeley was convicted because after strangling the dog until it was unconscious he continued to strangle its eventually dead body
Elements of an Offence
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
Inviable Defences
Unable to afford vet care, had to kill dog to save hens, killed the dog because it looked like it was about to attack
Requisites under the Law
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
Batch Funding
Completely government funded (APOs)
Patchwork Funding
Funded by multiple things, but creates inequalities between APO groups
