Caine Fur Farms Limited v. Kokolsky

Caine Fur Farms Limited v. Kokolsky

Given the statutory prohibition and municipal by-law against dogs running at large, the proximity of the farms, knowledge of whelping season and the foreseeable propensity of strange dogs to terrify female mink, the defendants owed a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent their dog straying; failure to do so...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1963] SCR 315
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Caine Fur Farms Limited; Defendant/appellant: John T. Caine; Plaintiff/respondent: John Kokolsky (Carrying on business as Capitol Mink Farm)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 1963
Procedural Posture
Tort (negligence/damage by Animal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Appellate Division (leave Granted)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Liability for Animals, By Law Compliance, Game Act S.44
Source Language
english
Torts Animal Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Duty of Care Liability for Animals By Law Compliance Game Act S.44

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caine Fur Farms Limited

Defendant/appellant

John T. Caine

Defendant/appellant

John Kokolsky (Carrying on business as Capitol Mink Farm)

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort (negligence/damage by Animal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Appellate Division (leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dog owner owed a duty of care to neighbouring mink farmer to prevent dog straying during whelping season
  2. 2 Whether liability requires scienter (knowledge of animal's dangerous propensities) or can be established in negligence
  3. 3 Whether statutory provisions and municipal by-law created or augmented the duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

Given the statutory prohibition and municipal by-law against dogs running at large, the proximity of the farms, knowledge of whelping season and the foreseeable propensity of strange dogs to terrify female mink, the defendants owed a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent their dog straying; failure to do so constituted negligence and liability for the resulting loss follows; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.