Can I Be Charged With Animal Cruelty For Shooting A Dog On My Property With A Bb Gun

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION

1. The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to holding in department i(a).

2. Section 1(a) of the Bill of Rights recognizes "the right of the private to life, liberty and security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except past due process of police force."

3. Department 182.two violates the guarantee of the correct to holding in section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

4. Under the mutual police force, domestic animals may exist owned as personal property by individuals.

5. Furthermore, wild animals may be owned as personal property if they are encaged and potentially even if the animals escape(see section 322(v) of the Criminal Lawmaking).

6. In the various subsections of Section 182.2(ane) the right to property is violated in a manner inconsistent with the Canadian Nib of Rights:

Section 182.2(i)(a)

· fishing in fish farms and other encaged environments may be prohibited;

· in particular, fly fishing and other forms of fishing in which the fish is returned to the h2o live may be prohibited, as such action causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to a fish;

· all rodeos may be prohibited nether this department, as steer wrestling, bronc and balderdash riding and many other rodeo events are not necessary;

· domestic dog and cat shows may no longer be permissible in Canada, as the dogs and cats in the shows may be injured or may suffer as office of the procedure of preparing the animals to be testify animals;

· in each of the above-noted examples, the holding rights of the owners of the animals are limited in a fashion inconsistent with the property rights guaranteed in the Canadian Nib of Rights.

Section 182(i)(c)

· currently, domestic animals and convict wild animals may, under the mutual law, be killed for any reason or no reason at all (see also section 446 of the Criminal Lawmaking);

· the right to kill the animals referred to higher up is one of the rights of buying at common law;

· subsection 182(ane)(c) places an onus on the possessor of an brute to prove that at that place was or is an alibi for the death of the animal the owner may kill;

· subsection 182(1)(c) is either a complete or most consummate prohibition on the killing of an animal, or it is no prohibition at all;

· if lawful excuse means legal permission, then a hunting license will exist required and while this may qualify the killing of wild animals, there are, nonetheless, no licences for the killing of domestic animals;

· if lawful excuse ways that there must exist a reason that is non illegal, and then whatever killing, even killing which does not consequence in a bays, food or other utilitarian product volition exist legal, as killing an fauna for the sake of homo pleasure is not prohibited nether constabulary (some fishing and some bird hunting would autumn into the "pleasance" category).

7. Removal of the "cruelty to animals" rules from Part Eleven - Wilful and Forbidden Acts (Property) is an indication that the drafters are trying to grant to animals a status other than "property." If that is Parliament's intention, then i cannot complain under the Nib of Rights. However, it is non birthday articulate why Parliament would have this astern approach to addressing a significant question of civil law, a question that is otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces under section 92 of the Constitution Human activity, 1867. This step to strip Canadians of their ownership interest in animals may in and of itself be a violation of section 1(a) of the Neb of Rights.

8. The deletion of the requirement of "wilfulness" and the improver of the prohibition on killing "without lawful excuse" are 2 amendments which volition have the most far reaching unintended consequences. Some of the unintended consequences are outlined below.

9. Furthermore, the definition of creature is unduly broad. Canadians will indeed be shocked to acquire that mice, rats, garden moles, gophers, suckers, minnows, goldfish and other rodents and vermin are included in the provisions of section 182.two. They will indeed be surprised to acquire that if they eat a goldfish equally a stunt instead of for food they volition be liable to imprisonment for five years.

x. In rat-free Alberta, shooting rats at the border may no longer be tolerated.

11. The farm kids shooting gophers for fun may unwittingly be branded as criminals. The aforementioned matter may apply to those shooting magpies and crows. Only those smart enough to remember that they are "protecting" the farm grain stocks will go free.

12. Negligent activeness under section 182.iii exposes an individual to two years in jail or to a fine of up to$v,000.00. Negligent activity prohibited under section 182.3(ane)(a) may include the use of a claw rather than a net to catch convict fish. It could also include the negligent chuck railroad vehicle driver who kills a horse considering of a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use.

xiii. Section 182.iii(1)(b) may be violated by the female parent who forgets to feed the goldfish for her child, while the kid is away at summer camp.

xiv. Department 182.3(1)(c) would make information technology a criminal offence to negligently injure the family true cat in a machine accident. This seems unreasonable, when to negligently injure or impale the family is not prohibited or penalized under federal law.