[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

So you agree that a judge would never make someone put a dog down because of high vet bills then?

I don't know. I do know that judges have been know to find costs incurred by a plaintiff in an action unreasonable and not award them completely.

Unless my computer didn't bring up everything it actually took me two minutes.

Was there more than this?


DANGEROUS DOGS ACT Chapter D-3
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Complaint as to bite 1 A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person and if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it. RSA 1980 cD-3 s1
Complaint as to dangerous dog 2(1) A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control and if it appears to the justice that the dog is dangerous, the justice may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner in a proper way or to be destroyed. (2) A person who fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5 for each day during which the person fails to comply with the order. RSA 1980 cD-3 s2
Presumption of ownership 3(1) The occupier of a house or premises where a dog was kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of a complaint shall be presumed to be the owner of the dog unless the occupier proves that the occupier was not the owner of the dog at the time. (2) When there are more occupiers than one of a house or premises let in separate apartments or lodgings, or otherwise, the occupier of that particular part of the house or premises in which a dog was kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of a complaint shall be presumed to be the owner of the dog unless the occupier proves that the occupier was not the owner of the dog at the time.

And know I know you didn't even hit or read the link..............because it isn't the Dangerous Dogs Act.