Category: Animal Law

Legislation commented on: Wildlife (Grizzly Bear – Ministerial) Amendment Regulation, Alta Reg 115/2024

PDF Version: Legal Hunting of an Endangered Species: A Grizzly Tale in Alberta

On July 9 the Alberta government issued a news release announcing that the Minister of Forestry and Parks has reinstated a grizzly bear hunt in Alberta. In this post, I describe the legislative amendment made to enable the hunt and explain how effective endangered species legislation (non-existent in Alberta) would make it much more difficult for the Minister to do this. Alberta’s endangered species law and policy has always been a sad joke in terms of facilitating protection or recovery of species, but the UCP government has now managed to make this a sad and twisted joke. Alberta has joined a select group of countries in the world that authorize hunting of a majestic fauna species that they also designate as threatened with extinction (membership in this group includes many African nations who cater to trophy hunters – see Elephants, lions and leopards: 13 countries where rich people hunt endangered animals.

Canadian Species at Risk, Where the Government Ignores Emergencies and Law

By Drew Yewchuk

On July 1, 2024

In Animal Law, Protection of Species

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented On: Western Canada Wilderness Committee v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2024 FC 870 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Canadian Species at Risk, Where the Government Ignores Emergencies and Law

Western Canada Wilderness Committee v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2024 FC 870 (CanLII) is a Federal Court decision about the obligations of the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) to recommend emergency protections for species facing imminent threats to their survival or recovery under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA). Justice Yvan Roy concluded that the Minister had unlawfully delayed recommending that the Governor in Council issue an emergency order under SARA for the spotted owl, and rejected the Minister’s interpretation that recommending an emergency order could be delayed while the Minister gathered extensive information. The decision also addresses a long-term problem with the implementation of SARA: internal executive branch processes have not complied with the text, purpose, or past judicial interpretations of SARA.

‘Negative Population Growth’ for Boreal Caribou in Alberta

By Shaun Fluker

On March 15, 2024

In Animal Law, Environmental, Protection of Species

By: Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: First Report on the implementation of the Section 11 agreement for the conservation and recovery of the woodland caribou in Alberta (January 19, 2024)

PDF Version: ‘Negative Population Growth’ for Boreal Caribou in Alberta

In late January, Alberta issued the first Report on implementation of the Agreement for the conservation and recovery of the Woodland Caribou in Alberta, signed by Alberta and Canada under section 11 of the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 [SARA] in October 2020. Commentators have noted that the Report reveals little progress by Alberta on protecting what is left of boreal caribou in this province. This criticism is certainly warranted, however the commitments made by Alberta in this Agreement will never result in progress towards halting the march of caribou towards extirpation (see “Canada and Alberta Agree to More Pie-In-The-Sky on Woodland Caribou”). What the Report does make transparent is: (1) Alberta continues to authorize the destruction of caribou habitat despite saying publicly that the government is committed to achieving population recovery; and (2) Alberta’s only real action plan to save caribou is to kill wolves.

The Silence of the Turkeys: What Does the Agriculture Industry Have to Hide?

By Lara Yeung

On July 12, 2021

In Animal Law

By: Lara Yeung

PDF Version: The Silence of the Turkeys: What Does the Agriculture Industry Have to Hide?

Statute Commented On: Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, 2nd Sess, 43rd Parl, 2020 (as amended by Committee 21 June 2021)

In 2020, Parliament considered Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, 1st Sess, 43rd Parl, 2020 (as passed by the House of Commons on first reading 18 February 2020). Bill C-205 was introduced by Mr. John Barlow as a Private Member’s Bill in response to protests and farm occupations across Canada by animal activists (see Hansard). This version of Bill C-205 would have made it an offence for any person, “without lawful authority or excuse,” to enter a place in which animals are kept if it could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance (s 9.1). Bill C-205 purports to be concerned with biosecurity risks, however, its focus on punishing trespassers, including animal activists, ignores the evidence that shows biosecurity risks are not caused by trespassers but rather by poor farming practices (see Animal Justice, “Animal Advocacy or Animal Agriculture? Disease Outbreaks & Biosecurity Failures on Canadian Farms” (13 May 2021)). In a small victory for animal activists, Bill C-205 was amended on review by Committee to recognize that it may be farm owners and operators themselves who are responsible for these risks (see Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, 1st Sess, 43rd Parl, 2020 (as amended by Committee 21 June 2021) and Animal Justice, “Federal “Ag Gag” Bill Could Punish Negligent Farmers After Amendments at Committee” (22 June 2021)). This comment will examine similar provincial legislation that is sweeping across Canada, with an emphasis on the legislation enacted in Alberta in 2019.