Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 JANUARY 2018

Agricultural Law Netletter - Sunday, January 7, 2018

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

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.

CanadaEnvironment

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)

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from