Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City),

JudgeFraser, C.J.A., Costigan and Slatter, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2011 ABCA 238
Date29 March 2011
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)

Reece v. Edmonton (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. AU.012

Tove Reece, Zoocheck Canada Incorporated and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (appellants/applicants) v. The City of Edmonton (respondent/respondent)

(1003-0264-AC; 2011 ABCA 238)

Indexed As: Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Costigan and Slatter, JJ.A.

August 4, 2011.

Summary:

The City of Edmonton held a licence under the Wildlife Act to operate a zoo, which housed a lone Asian elephant named Lucy. The appellants believed that Lucy's facilities and situation at the zoo were detrimental to her health, and that Lucy should be moved to an elephant sanctuary in a warmer climate where she could enjoy the companionship of other elephants. The appellants commenced an action by originating notice for an order declaring that the City of Edmonton was in violation of s. 2 of the Animal Protection Act (causing or permitting an animal to be in distress). The City applied to strike out the originating notice on the basis that the appellants had no standing, the proceedings were an abuse of process, or alternatively that the appellants had chosen the wrong procedure.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2010), 498 A.R. 43, struck out the originating notice. The chambers judge concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process because a private litigant could not seek a declaration that the City was in breach of a penal provision in a statute. Alternatively, he concluded that the application should have been brought by way of statement of claim. Finally, he concluded that the appellants had no private interest standing, and that there were barriers to them being awarded public interest standing. The appellants appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Fraser, C.J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the chambers judge correctly concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

Animals - Topic 7044

Offences - Particular offences - Causing or permitting an animal to be in distress - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Courts - Topic 2006

Jurisdiction - General principles - Issues not suitable for judicial determination - General - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process - The City of Edmonton held a licence under the Wildlife Act to operate a zoo, which housed a lone Asian elephant named Lucy - The appellants believed that Lucy's facilities and situation at the zoo were detrimental to her health, and that Lucy should be moved to an elephant sanctuary in a warmer climate where she could enjoy the companionship of other elephants - The appellants commenced an action by originating notice for an order declaring that the City of Edmonton was in violation of s. 2 of the Animal Protection Act (causing or permitting an animal to be in distress) - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed an order striking out the originating notice on the basis that the proceedings were an abuse of process - The courts had generally denied applications for a declaration that the respondent was in breach of a penal statute - There were a number of reasons why the courts were reluctant to grant a declaration that someone was in breach of a penal statute, or other similar civil remedies - For one thing, the burden of proof in civil proceedings was on a balance of probabilities, whereas the burden of proof in penal or regulatory proceedings was proof beyond a reasonable doubt - Civil proceedings of this nature could also have the effect of undermining the jurisdiction of the criminal courts and the Attorney General in the enforcement of the law - Alternatively, to the extent that the declaration applied for effectively implied that the City was in breach of its zoo licence, the proceedings undermined the authority of those charged with granting or revoking such licences - If there had been any breach in that regard, public law remedies might be available - Slatter, J.A., stated that "It is not appropriate to expect the courts to take over the animal husbandry of the animals at the City zoo through the ability to issue declarations on points of law. ... there are other public officials who have that responsibility, and other appropriate legal procedures to possibly engage if they fail to discharge their duties. Further, it is not the role of the superior courts to review every operational decision made by government, and the courts do not have the resources needed to deal with the volume of applications that could be generated if the procedure chosen by the appellants was endorsed. The role of the superior courts is limited to reviewing the legality of executive action, and does not extend to examining the policy choices made by the executive branch. There are established procedures for judicial review, which have many built in controls that reflect the constitutional relationship between the executive branch and the judicial branch" - See paragraphs 1 to 37.

Practice - Topic 2215

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Declaratory actions - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Barros (R.) (2010), 477 A.R. 127; 483 W.A.C. 127; 2010 ABCA 116, refd to. [para. 6].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [paras. 10, 131, footnote 104].

Enron Canada Corp. v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd. (2007), 401 A.R. 291; 391 W.A.C. 291; 2007 ABCA 27, refd to. [para. 10].

Rodaro et al. v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 203; 59 O.R.(3d) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Drummond-Jackson v. British Medical Association, [1970] 1 W.L.R. 688 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al. (2011), 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 419 N.R. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [paras. 14, 129, footnote 99].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [paras. 17, 144, footnote 117].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 18].

Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers, [1978] A.C. 435 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 21, 170, footnote 137].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 22].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Greenpeace Canada et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 199 N.R. 279; 79 B.C.A.C. 135; 129 W.A.C. 135, refd to. [para. 23].

McNeil v. Board of Censors (N.S.), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, refd to. [paras. 24, 171, footnote 138].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [paras. 24, 139, footnote 112].

R. v. Shore Disposal Ltd.; DeWolfe (Ed) Trucking Ltd. et al. v. Shore Disposal Ltd. (1976), 16 N.S.R.(2d) 538; 16 A.P.R. 538 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Manitoba Naturalists Society Inc. v. Ducks Unlimited (Canada) (1991), 79 Man.R.(2d) 15; 86 D.L.R.(4th) 709 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Rabbitt v. Craigmont Mines Ltd. (1963), 42 W.W.R.(N.S.) 157 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Mid West Television Ltd. v. S.E.D. Systems Inc. et al., [1981] 3 W.W.R. 560; 9 Sask.R. 199 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lobbins (No. 2), [1940] 3 W.W.R. 301; 74 C.C.C. 274 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Richard (R.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 525; 203 N.R. 8; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 463 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 29].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Edmonton (City), [2006] A.R. Uned. 285; 20 C.E.L.R.(3d) 1; 2006 ABPC 56, refd to. [para. 33].

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298; 2000 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 4].

Canadian Federation of Students (B.C.) et al. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295; 389 N.R. 98; 272 B.C.A.C. 29; 459 W.A.C. 29; 2009 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 5].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 6].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 7].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 16].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 16].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 16].

Tottrup v. Lund et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 204; 220 W.A.C. 204; 2000 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 16].

Dyson v. Attorney General, [1911] 1 K.B. 410 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 18].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 20].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 20].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 20].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236; 2001 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 21].

R. v. Menard (S.) (1979), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 458 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1977] 2 S.C.R. iii; 25 N.R. 171, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 28].

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 90, footnote 50].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 61].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 62].

R. v. Monkhouse (1987), 83 A.R. 62; 61 C.R.(3d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 66].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 68].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department); Ex parte Daly, [2001] 3 All E.R. 433; [2001] UKHL 26, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 91].

Stack v. Dowden, [2007] N.R. Uned. 109; [2007] 2 All E.R. 929; [2007] UKHL 17, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 91].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 92].

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 93].

Car Owners' Mutual Insurance Co. v. Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, [1970] A.C. 527, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 93].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 129, footnote 101].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210; 221 N.R. 1; 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 490 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 130, footnote 102].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 130, footnote 102].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 129, footnote 103].

Quaintance Estate, Re (2006), 380 A.R. 160; 363 W.A.C. 160; 2006 ABCA 47, refd to. [para. 131, footnote 105].

Mitten v. College of Alberta Psychologists et al. (2010), 487 A.R. 198; 495 W.A.C. 198; 2010 ABCA 159, refd to. [para. 131, footnote 106].

Hozaima v. Perry et al. (2010), 251 Man.R.(2d) 148; 478 W.A.C. 148; 2010 MBCA 21, refd to. [para. 133, footnote 108].

Mohl v. University of British Columbia (2006), 222 B.C.A.C. 258; 368 W.A.C. 258; 2006 BCCA 70, leave to appeal refused [2009] 3 S.C.R. viii; 403 N.R. 389; 288 B.C.A.C. 320; 488 W.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 133, footnote 108].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 133, footnote 109].

Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd., [1977] 2 All E.R. 556 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144, footnote 118].

Toronto (City) v. Polai, [1970] 1 O.R. 483 (C.A.), affd. [1973] S.C.R. 38, refd to. [para. 146, footnote 119].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 150, footnote 123].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 150, footnote 124].

R. v. Bjelland (J.C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 651; 391 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 230; 462 W.A.C. 230; 2009 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 150, footnote 126].

Christie v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 873; 361 N.R. 322; 240 B.C.A.C. 1; 398 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 129].

R. v. Beaudry (A.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; 356 N.R. 323; 2007 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 159, footnote 130].

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 327 D.L.R.(4th) 527; 2010 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 160, footnote 132].

Ontario v. 8477 Darlington Crescent et al. - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor et al.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor et al. (2011), 279 O.A.C. 268; 2011 ONCA 363, refd to. [para. 162, footnote 133].

Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2011), 417 N.R. 126; 279 O.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 163, footnote 135].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 167, footnote 136].

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State Inc. (1982), 454 U.S. 464, refd to. [para. 170, footnote 137].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 138].

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice and Minister of Finance), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 138].

Just v. British Columbia, [1985] 5 W.W.R. 570; 64 B.C.L.R. 349 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 174, footnote 141].

Statutes Noticed:

Animal Protection Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-41, sect. 1(2), sect. 2, sect. 12 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, Jack, Wild Elephants in Captivity, generally [para. 108, footnote 76].

Alberta, Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Alberta Zoo Standards Committee, Government of Alberta Standards for Zoos in Alberta (September 30, 2005), generally [paras. 39, 79, 183, footnotes 1, 48, 63]; ss. II B [para. 98, footnote 56]; III [para. 80]; III B 1 [paras. 43, 81, 121, 124, footnote 12]; III B 2 [paras. 84, 120]; III C [para. 83].

American Zoo and Aquarium Association Standards for Elephant Management and Care (March 21, 2001) (May 5, 2003 Update), generally [paras. 39, 85, 119, 120, 126, footnotes 1, 49]; Standards 1.4.2 [para. 118, footnote 89]; 2.2.4 [paras. 86, 124]; 2.3.1 [paras. 85, 124, 125].

Bentham, Jeremy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1988), p. 310 [para. 54, footnote 23].

Burbidge, George W., A Digest of the Criminal Law of Canada (1890), art. 604 [para. 56, footnote 27].

Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums Accreditation Standards (December 1, 2008), p. 14 [para. 39, footnote 1].

Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums Elephant Care Manual (October 1, 2008), para. 28 [para. 39, footnote 1].

Côté, Pierre André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 381 to 392 [para. 51, footnote 19].

DeCoste, F.C., Animals and Political Community: Preliminary Reflections Prompted by Bill C-10 (2003), 40:4 Alta. L. Rev. 1057, generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Epstein, Richard A., Animals as Objects, or Subjects, of Rights" in Sunstein, Cass R., and Nussbaum, Martha C., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004), p. 143 ff. [para. 60, footnote 33].

Favre, David, A New Property Status for Animals: Equitable Self-Ownership, in Sunstein, Cass R., and Nussbaum, Martha C., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004), pp. 234 to 250 [para. 67, footnote 37].

Favre, David, and Tsang, Vivien, The Development of Anti-Cruelty Laws During the 1800's (1993), 1 Detroit Coll. of L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Favre, David, Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System (2010), 93 Marquette L. Rev. 1021, generally [paras. 54, 67, footnotes 24, 37].

Francione, Gary, Animals, Property and Legal Welfarism: Unnecessary Suffering and the Humane Treatment of Animals (1994), 46:2 Rutgers L. Rev. 721, generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Francione, Gary, Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance (1997), 3 Animal L. 75, generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Francione, Gary, Animals as Persons: Essays on Abolition of Animal Exploitation (2008), generally [para. 69, footnote 39].

Francione, Gary, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1997), generally [paras. 54, 69, footnotes 24, 39].

Hughes, Elaine L., and Meyer, Christiane, Animal Welfare Law in Canada and Europe (2000), 6 Animal L. 23, generally [para. 54, footnote 24]; pp. 32, 33, 55, 56, 69 to 72 [para. 59, footnote 32].

Hughes, Elaine, Animal Welfare Law in a Canadian Context (2006), generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Kwasniak, Arlene, Wildlife Stewardship (2006), generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Letourneau, Lyne, Toward Animal Liberation - The New Anti-Cruelty Provisions in Canada and Their Impact on the Status of Animals (2003), 40:4 Alta. L. Rev. 1041, generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Leavitt, Emily Steward, Animals and their Legal Rights: A Survey of American Laws from 1641 to 1970 (1970), p. 8 [para. 55, footnote 25].

Sankoff, Peter, and White, Steven, Animal Law in Australasia: A New Dialogue (2009), generally [para. 54, footnote 24]; pp. 7 [para. 54, footnote 22]; 8 [paras. 54, 55, footnotes 22, 23, 26]; 9 [para. 60, footnote 33]; 132 to 150 [para. 43, footnote 10].

Sarna, Lazar, The Law of Declaratory Judgments (3rd Ed. 2007), pp. 19 [para. 181, footnote 144]; 26 [para. 155, footnote 127].

Schaffner, Joan E., An Introduction to Animals and the Law (2011), generally [para. 54, footnote 24]; pp. 71 to 117 [para. 57, footnote 30]; 97 [para. 103, footnote 69]; 173 to 180 [para. 59, footnote 32]; 176 to 192 [para. 65, footnote 35].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 256 to 297 [para. 51, footnote 19].

Sunstein, Cass, Can Animals Sue?, in Sunstein, Cass R., and Nussbaum, Martha C., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004), pp. 251 to 262 [para. 66, footnote 36].

Sunstein, Cass, Introduction: What are Animal Rights?, in Sunstein, Cass R., and Nussbaum, Martha C., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004), pp. 3 to 15 [para. 66, footnote 36].

Sunstein, Cass R., and Leslie, Jeff, Animal Rights Without Controversy (2007), 70 L. & Contemp. Prob. 117, generally [para. 54, footnote 24].

Sunstein, Cass R., and Nussbaum, Martha C., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004), generally [para. 54, footnote 24]; pp. 3 to 15 [para. 66, footnote 36]; 19 to 50 [para. 68, footnote 38]; 143 ff. [para. 60, footnote 33]; 234 to 250 [para. 67, footnote 37]; 251 to 262 [para. 66, footnote 36].

West, Gary, Biology, Medicine and Surgery of Elephants (2006), generally [para. 108, footnote 76].

Wise, Steven, Animal Rights, One Step at a Time, in Sunstein, Cass R., and Nussbaum, Martha C., Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004), pp. 19 to 50 [para. 68, footnote 38].

Wise, Steven, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000), generally [paras. 54, 68, footnotes 24, 38].

Counsel:

C.C. Ruby, for the appellants;

S.F.E. Phipps and S.C. McAnsh, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 29, 2011, before Fraser, C.J.A., Costigan and Slatter, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The reasons for judgment reserved of the Court of Appeal were filed on August 4, 2011, including the following opinions:

Slatter, J.A. (Costigan, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

Fraser, C.J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 39 to 199.

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 practice notes
  • Lameman et al. v. Alberta et al., 2013 ABCA 148
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 28, 2013
    ...of Alberta Psychologists et al. (2010), 487 A.R. 198; 495 W.A.C. 198; 2010 ABCA 159, refd to. [para. 11]. Reece v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. First Mortgage Alberta Fund (V) Inc. et al. v. Boychuk et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 1; 281 W.A.C......
  • Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd., (2015) 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 14, 2015
    ...195]. R. v. Mahalingan (R.) (2008), 381 N.R. 199; 243 O.A.C. 199; 2008 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 205]. Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 207]. Babavic v. Babowech, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1802 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 208]. Toronto (......
  • Chutskoff Estate v. Bonora et al., (2014) 590 A.R. 288 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 16, 2013
    ...Masterman-Lister v. Brutton & Co., [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1889 (U.K.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 335 D.L.R.(4th) 600; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 80]. V.W.W. v. Leung (2011), 530 A.R. 82; 2011 ABQB 688, refd to. [para......
  • Fearn v. Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • January 13, 2014
    ...to. [para. 97]. R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 97]. Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 335 D.L.R.(4th) 600; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. Dykun v. Odishaw et al. (2000), 267 A.R. 318; 2000 ABQB 548, affd. (2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
69 cases
  • Lameman et al. v. Alberta et al., 2013 ABCA 148
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 28, 2013
    ...of Alberta Psychologists et al. (2010), 487 A.R. 198; 495 W.A.C. 198; 2010 ABCA 159, refd to. [para. 11]. Reece v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. First Mortgage Alberta Fund (V) Inc. et al. v. Boychuk et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 1; 281 W.A.C......
  • Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd., (2015) 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 14, 2015
    ...195]. R. v. Mahalingan (R.) (2008), 381 N.R. 199; 243 O.A.C. 199; 2008 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 205]. Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 207]. Babavic v. Babowech, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1802 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 208]. Toronto (......
  • Chutskoff Estate v. Bonora et al., (2014) 590 A.R. 288 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 16, 2013
    ...Masterman-Lister v. Brutton & Co., [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1889 (U.K.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 335 D.L.R.(4th) 600; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 80]. V.W.W. v. Leung (2011), 530 A.R. 82; 2011 ABQB 688, refd to. [para......
  • Fearn v. Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • January 13, 2014
    ...to. [para. 97]. R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 97]. Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 335 D.L.R.(4th) 600; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. Dykun v. Odishaw et al. (2000), 267 A.R. 318; 2000 ABQB 548, affd. (2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Agricultural Law Netletter - Sunday, January 7, 2018
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • January 10, 2018
    ...abuse of process and because Zoocheck had used the wrong proceedings: Reece v Edmonton (City), [2010] A.J. No. 944, 2010 ABQB 538; aff'd: 2011 ABCA 238, [2011] A.J. No. 876 With respect to the test for public interest standing, Rooke, ACJ stated as follows [at para. 6]: [6] The test for pub......
  • A Tale Of Two Citruses: BCCA Weighs In On When An Abuse Of Process Claim Is Ripe For Determination
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 6, 2015
    ...RSP's application as an abuse of process. First, Justice Frankel, relying on Justice Slatter's decision in Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238, leave to appeal ref'd [2012] 1 S.C.R. xi, rejected the motion judge's decision that an assessment of whether RSP's application ought to be stru......
22 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...(C.A.) .................................................................. 386 The Law of equiTabLe Remedies 568 Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 447 ...................................................................238, 239, 24......
  • Injunctions to Enforce Public Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...interest standing.” 42 This more generous notion of standing has also been 40 [1902] A.C. 165 (H.L.). 41 See Reece v. Edmonton (City) , 2011 ABCA 238, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 447; Carruthers v. Langley (1984), 13 D.L.R. (4th) 528 (B.C.S.C.), aff’d with additio......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Perspectives on Animals and the Law Part V. New Tactical Approaches
    • June 19, 2015
    ...2374 (CA) .................................................................................................321 Reece v Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2011] SCCA No 447 .......................................................................... xii, 2, 54, 58......
  • Injunctions to Enforce Public Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies - Third edition
    • November 18, 2023
    ...to an individual citizen beyond the 51 London County Council v Attorney-General , [1902] AC 165 (HL). 52 See Reece v Edmonton (City) , 2011 ABCA 238, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2011] SCCA No 447 [ Reece ]; Carruthers v Langley (1984), 13 DLR (4th) 528 (BCSC), af’d with additional reaso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT