 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
The contest featured many “ugly” competitors, including Chihuahuas and Pugs and some whatever dogs, such as Freddie Mercury, who was described as having a “face like a forklift.” Grrr.
I find this type of competition offensive to animals — and to animal lovers. I have no doubt that most pet owners reading about this event are having kittens. Meow meow! I urge animal protection groups such as PETA to start legal proceedings against the contest organization and, for that matter, against the contestants (the dog owners, not the canines). Make it a class action. Why not go wild? Teach them a lesson. And what are the chances of success? Slim now, but getting better.
Looking around at pet law in divorce actions, pets are generally considered property. Courts will not treat Fido, Rover or Pluto as family and ergo award custody or visitation to duelling owners. Legal ownership dictates where these creatures land. Exception — British Columbia. As of this year, the B.C. Family Law Act’s amendments enable the court to award custody after considering metrics such as what is in the best interest of Snoopy, Goofy or Toto. (Actually, I saw The Wizard of Oz several times, and I never much cared for Toto. On this one, I am on all fours with the sentiments of Almira Gulch; a.k.a., the Wicked Witch of the West. But I digress).
However, I view B.C.’s bold move forward as a breach in the callous animal welfare rights citadel. Let us remember that May Donoghue persevered tenaciously almost a century ago when she flipped the laws of negligence 180 degrees after suing the manufacturer of that ginger beer that contained that unexpected snail (M’Alister (or Donoghue) v. Stevenson). True this was not an animal rights case. The House of Lords never mentioned anything about the fate of the snail. I googled the decision actually and nowhere did I see Lord Atkin say anything like, “My Lords, Stevenson owed a duty to Mrs. Donoghue based on the neighbour principle. As regards the snail, I have no clue how he found himself in that opaque bottle. Nor would I venture to say the poor fellow was a neighbour.” Alas!
The conditions are rife for a change in the laws. The animals should be protected from abusive, disrespectful and defamatory behaviour. Just imagine a contest for humans where the first prize goes to the one closest resembling Quasimodo. Poor Wild Thang even got schlepped from Coos Bay to Petaluma to get degraded. Five times!
And the human culprits involved try to sugarcoat the contest by making comments, such as the winner of the silver medal saying, “I love that competition. It represents dogs that are imperfectly perfect.” Or the third-place owner noting, “My dog is the most beautiful ugly dog.”
And the event organizers have the chutzpah to tout on their website that the contest is not about making fun of “ugly” dogs. Rather it’s about “having fun with some wonderful characters and showing the world that these dogs are really beautiful!” That’s a crock of bull. It’s like saying to the Edmonton Oilers the Stanley Cup final is not really about winning or losing. It’s about having fun and enjoying a friendly scrimmage.
I say go after these guys. Put them in their place where they belong: in the doghouse.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. For more vital musings on travel, check out his book Poutine on the Orient Express: An Irreverent Look at Travel, on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour. And FYI, expect the new book, First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe, to launch in the summer.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.