Reece v. Edmonton, 2011 ABCA 238

In Reece v. Edmonton, the Court of Appeal of Alberta held that it was an abuse of process for two public interest organisations to initiate civil proceedings to enforce the punitive penal provisions of an animal welfare statute where the government had omitted to do so. Chief Justice Fraser, in dissent, argued that the groups should be granted public interest standing and allowed to seek a declaratory judgment against the City.


The applicants, Zoocheck Canada and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc (PETA), filed for an Originating Notice seeking a judicial declaration that the City of Edmonton, as operator of the Edmonton Valley Zoo, was causing "distress" to its lone elephant, Lucy, in contravention of Alberta's Animal 
Protection Act. The Chambers judge granted City’s 
motion to strike the notice as it was an abuse of process for private 
litigants to initiate civil proceedings to enforce punitive penal 
sanctions. 
The Chambers judge also found that there were more appropriate 
remedies available through the Animal Protection Act and Wildlife Act 
2000. Affirming the decision of the Chambers judge, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that 
the applicants' filing was an abuse of process. Noting that the courts have generally denied applications for a declaration that the respondent is in breach of a penal statute, even where the applicant has been granted public interest standing, the Court argued that such applications undermine the presumption of innocence in penal proceedings, the jurisdiction of the criminal courts, the authority of the Attorney-General, and the authority of the agency that grants zoo licences. The appropriate remedy available to the appellants, in the Court's view, was to file a complaint with the local Humane Society, leaving the enforcement of penal statutes to the Attorney-General.


Chief Justice Fraser, in dissent, found that the 
appellants should be granted public interest standing and that the 
appeal should be allowed to proceed under an amended pleading. She rejected the finding of abuse of process and criticized the majority for failing to resolve the issue of public interest standing, arguing that the case raised novel and serious issues of law and thus merited legal consideration. Reviewing the historical and legal context of animal protection laws, Justice Fraser argued that although the legal regime in regards to animals has evolved in the past 250 years from an "exploitative" model to one of "animal welfare," there are still serious deficiencies in the actual protection accorded to animals that demand a generous interpretation of animal protection laws by the courts - in particular, by acknowledging that animals cannot commence lawsuits on their own and enabling humans to do so for them by taking a generous approach to public interest standing in animal welfare cases. Justice Fraser also argued that civil enforcement of punitive sanctions could occur alongside enforcement by the Attorney-General, and that this would enhance the rule of law rather than undermine legal authority.

August 4, 2011
Link to Decision

Jen-Yii Liew & Kai Sheffield