Coyote Poacher Kills Dog - Chatham Area

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Anyone shooting at someone's dog,anywhere,better being carrying a badge and warrant card PLUS have reasonable and probable grounds. Having said though,the dipshyte who shot the farmer's dog will get bugger all for charges out of it if/when caught. "Trespassing to hunt" is a set fine of $150. Even criminal charges are pretty "iffy". "Destruction of private property" is only a summary conviction offense. As much as it PO's everyone,in the end,not much will come of this.

---

A badge is not needed at all in some area,s and the excuse to kill a dog could be pretty slim ie the dog was threatening me?The law in unorganized Townships,s


3) Where any person finds a dog running at large contrary to this Regulation and the dog is in the act of attacking or threatening to attack a human being, he or she may kill the dog.

(4) No damage or compensation shall be recovered for the killing of a dog under this section. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 732, s. 5.

The guy who shot this farmers dog will probably get hammered with a careless hunting charge just on the fact he shot a dog wearing a collar for a coyote,never mind the closeness to the farm and trespass.The fact he moved the bloody dog will also gleam plenty of DNA evidence should they wish to pursue this far.I would think a fine in the $1000 to $3000 range is the average right now.Might also get a ban on the hunting license if they had one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

A friend of mine was found to be 20% responsible for a car accident, by his insurance company, even though he was asleep in bed and his car was parked in his own driveway. Someone missed a curve and plowed into his car. He had to go to court and win ,to get his repair bills paid. So you can be found responsible, even if you have done nothing wrong. Something like letting your dog roam your own property.

---

They call this contributory negligence.

Contributory Negligence Definition: The negligence of a person which, while not being the primary cause of a tort, nevertheless combined with the act or omission of the primary defendant to cause the tort, and without which the tort would not have occurred.

Boy did this thread go sideways....
Sorry for the loss, must have been awful, hopefully they get some closure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

Boy did this thread go sideways....
Sorry for the loss, must have been awful, hopefully they get some closure.

---

Oh man, no kidding Frank, it's gone right off track, the guy was asking for any info pertaining to the killing of the family dog, not legalities of how if why maybe or any other kind of info....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

They call this contributory negligence.

Contributory Negligence Definition: The negligence of a person which, while not being the primary cause of a tort, nevertheless combined with the act or omission of the primary defendant to cause the tort, and without which the tort would not have occurred.

---

Hi Gilroy-not challenging the law or You,but in the case above with the car owner being charged for Contributory Negligence ,while the owner parked his/her car on his/hers own private driveway? If applied it is a 100% BS,and only good for money grab by our own well protected Insurance Companies.
IMHO!
Where did the owner contributed on his/hers own driveway to this collision other then - OWNING the bloody vehicle.:):):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The MNR near Bonfield Ontario used to give permission to the guys hunting deer to shoot dogs running deer during the open rifle season, there is no use of dogs in that particular zone yet gangs run dogs anyway.

"In many cases grounds for being destroyed" did not define such grounds, just stating that there are lots of different instances where they can be and many people do not understand that. I have a few friends that think it is just find to have their dogs running off leash in the bush and chasing deer, they never seem to think about the potential impact, like causing the doe to abort the fawn or run to the point of dying of exhaustion, etc.

The number of cats that roam around my area too is disgusting, people just think that they are natural and should be allowed to roam, then blame the coyotes for the drop in grouse/turkey numbers.

---

Unfortunately i have seen it(and likely all of us here, if spent some time in the woods)exactly what Fox was describing.
Farm dogs running wild in the bush,chasing whatever comes their way.
Pet is a pet,and i mentioned this before ,i love pets.....but:

As with other things ,there should be some control to protect wildlife from calamity brought upon them by free roaming house animals.IMHO.

Gilroy, maybe you could give us your legal opinion how someone found guilty in this case, would fair in a civil action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

Hi Gilroy-not challenging the law or You,but in the case above with the car owner being charged for Contributory Negligence ,while the owner parked his/her car on his/hers own private driveway? If applied it is a 100% BS,and only good for money grab by our own well protected Insurance Companies.
IMHO!
Where did the owner contributed on his/hers own driveway to this collision other then - OWNING the bloody vehicle.:):):)

---

Have a look at this Rankin Garage case.The poor owner of this garage had to go to the Supreme Court to get several decisions overturned which made him liable for some kids stealing car while drunk from his lot.Pretty scary. https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/37323-eng.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swampsinger

Gilroy, maybe you could give us your legal opinion how someone found guilty in this case, would fair in a civil action.

---

If I was a lawyer I would give you my legal opinion but I am far from a lawyer.The burden of proof generally at a civil trial is lower than a criminal trial and rules of evidence not as onerous,I would think a small claims action would be pretty easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Have a look at this Rankin Garage case.The poor owner of this garage had to go to the Supreme Court to get several decisions overturned which made him liable for some kids stealing car while drunk from his lot.Pretty scary. https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/37323-eng.pdf

---

Thanx Gilroy-this in my eye is a Legal game of Twisting and Turning things .Allowed by law or not-it is not right.
Period.