January 14, 2011

The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Copy to:

Mayor Jim Watson, City of Ottawa

Principal Sachem Paula LaPierre, Kichesipirni Algonquin First Nation

Mr. Nicholson,

The City of Ottawa intends to approve tree-cutting in the Beaver Pond Forest which is a part of
the South March Highlands (Great Forest), the most bio-diverse area in Ottawa. The Great
Forest has a rich and complex ecosystem, including 240 documented species of wildlife within
which there are 20 documented Species-at-Risk including endangered and threatened wildlife. A
great many of these species also inhabit the Beaver Pond Forest portion of the Great Forest.

Many of these species are currently hibernating and would be destroyed by any wintertime tree-
clearing activity. The thousands of members of non-hibernating species will be driven out to
adjacent lands and ultimately killed due to starvation, freezing due to the inability to reestablish
nests at this time of year, or consumed by predators or killed by their own species defending
existing territories.

Based on preliminary legal research (attached), we have discovered that “property right in
wildlife” belongs to the Crown. However, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources does
not appear to have an explicit statement in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 1997 covering
all wildlife which would give them the common law “property right in wildlife”, as do at least 3
of the other provinces.

While Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), federal Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and the federal Ministry of the Environment have regulatory processes to protect trees,
fish, migratory birds, and endangered species, there does not appear to be an authority or
regulatory process that would protect all of the wildlife to which the Crown has this property
right.

Our research also indicates that the City of Ottawa (City) does not have the legislative or
regulatory authority to authorize the killing, capture, and injury which the wildlife displacement
will cause, or to authorize the destruction of their habitat. The City also does not have the right
to authorize the driving of wildlife onto other landowners’ property and to expect those
landowners to deal with the impacts (nuisance, costs, etc.).

Page 1 of 16
Due to the magnitude of this 70 acre tree-cutting, the displacement may also overwhelm the
ability of the City, residents, and local organizations to cope with it – even though the nearby
Constance Creek Wildlife Conservancy has to assist the City in handling the volume of injured
wildlife that may be displaced. We are also concerned that the wildlife which manage to escape,
may be driven towards public highways and fleeing that wildlife will interfere with traffic and
present a risk to public safety.

Since this is an unregulated and potentially illegal activity, the City and the developer who will
be conducting the winter time tree-clearing have no wildlife impact assessment or mitigation
plan, other than to start at the southeast and drive the wildlife northwest. The City of Ottawa has
had incidents of injured animals not being able to be treated by veterinarians without permission
of OMNR who routinely withholds such permission.

It is our opinion that wintertime tree-cutting cannot be disassociated with the killing and injury
of wildlife, and that, if the City approves the tree-cutting, this will cause significant numbers of
Crown wildlife to be killed, injured, or starved. As this goes against the intent of various
legislative and regulatory instruments, and the moral fabric of our society, we have requested
that the City delay the tree-cutting until a legal review determines the feasibility of proceeding
with the wildlife massacre.

Recently a number of Aboriginal First Nations have expressed a request to be consulted prior to
any further destruction of the forest and its wildlife. Although the City has started a consultative
process, we are concerned that they are consulting with those that represent only treaty First
Nations and in doing so may be excluding the non-treaty First Nations that have already written
to them also requesting consultation. This includes the Ottawa Algonquin First Nation and the
Kitchesipirini Algonquin First Nation who are closest to Ottawa and whose traditional land
encompasses the Great Forest.

The Principal Sachem for the Kitchesipirini Algonquin First Nation has also suggested to us the
need to consult with the Department of Justice with regards to this matter, as indicated in the
following message to our organization:

“The Ministry of Natural Resources have no authority in unceded Algonquin territory.

If certain Algonquin groups wish to enter into agreements with the provincial ministry for specific
purposes that is fine, as long as they do not abrogate or derogate the rights of other Algonquin
rights holders. The registration under the Indian Act limits the original common law and law of
the land rights held by customary law. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation have not entered
into agreements or come under domestic statute, but our rights are still protected under Section
35 of the Constitution. Our full rights, title and jurisdiction still exist, and are to be protected, and
accommodated.

I think it very unfortunate that the Canadian public have not been given the information
regarding these issues. I think it is an example of bad faith, and seriously impairs the Honour of
the Crown. We have been attempting to resolve the issues for years.

With the preservation of Kichesipirini title and jurisdiction private property rights are not affected
but common human rights regarding the environment and civil participation are given first
priority and long lasting security not available with the limits established through current statutes

Page 2 of 16
jurisdiction. These are complex issues, but they must be addressed if Canadians are to enjoy the
full rights and freedoms guaranteed them in our Constitution of 1982.

I would suggest that the Department of Justice be contacted for information regarding the law,
the Constitution, customary law, and the legal standing of Algonquin title in unceded land.

I would also suggest that all Canadians demand an opportunity to examine the full legal
requirements associated with our Constitution, and that the Algonquin situation be used as an
opportunity for a sophisticated process worthy of international merit.

The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation is a distinct aboriginal people of Canada, with a
remarkably well recorded history tracing back 400 years, with our members holding direct
descent from those genealogies of 400 years ago when the foundations of Canada as a nation
were first forged. We have a clear documented record of laws regarding conservation and
resource stewardship.

Beyond the ecological concerns there are great ethical concerns as well. As a distinct aboriginal
people of Canada, while being a genuine part of Canada's history and heritage we have
experienced tremendous oppression. There has been tremendous historical revisionism regarding
the real history of the Algonquin Nation, and the Kichesipirini Algonquin First nation in particular,
and much of that continues today when we fail to develop policies that are consistent with the
Constitutional requirements that rights be recognized according to the customary cultural
practices of the peoples affected. This often happens within contemporary circumstances that
may give the appearance of legitimacy and reconciliation, but can actually further the injustices
and internalize them. The loss of important archaeological artefacts removed from our homeland,
from our gravesites even, are relocated to other Algonquin First Nations, the failure to
acknowledge whole villages lost, the very loss of our entire identity, has occurred through what
seems like legitimate policies and procedures, but without our participation and an open fact-
finding process.

There is a responsibility on the part of the Department of Justice to ensure that all are
adequately informed about these complex issues.

This is unceded Algonquin territory.

This is Kichesipirini jurisdiction.

Canadian citizens deserve to be fully informed.

Until that time, it is imperative that this property be protected. It is of interest to the Kichesipirini
Algonquin First Nation.

Its destruction poses a threat to the loss of important cultural materials, important to both the
Algonquin Nation and the Canadian Nation.

Forests and free spaces are an important part of our cultural grounding and inspiration. These
special places and all that inhabit them should be recognized as the great teachers and friends
that they are, and we should be keeping a place for them even near, and most importantly near,
our urban homes.

Let us not limit the creative potential of the people of Ottawa. I strongly support the efforts of
those raising concerns, and I look forward to seeing the fruition of their ideas in the years ahead.

Page 3 of 16
 Sincerely,

Paula LaPierre
Principal Sachem
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation
Kichi Sibi Anishnabe
Still Sovereign
Canada"

In view of this information we request that you advise the Mayor of Ottawa that the Honour of
the Crown (and common sense) requires that the City consults with all the First Nations who
have exercised their unextinquished right to meaningful consultation.

We also request that you clarify the limits to the legislative and regulatory authority provided to
Ontario and to the City in approving any mass destruction of wildlife pertaining to “property
right in wildlife” belonging to the Crown.

As this may take some time to sort out, we urgently request that you advise both the City and the
Province of Ontario that no wintertime tree clearing should be approved pending your
consideration of our requests.

Regards,

Paul Renaud
VP Research
South March Highlands – Carp River Conservation Inc.
14 Cypress Gardens
Stittsville, Ontario

613-277-5898
paul@renaud.ca

Attachment

Page 4 of 16
 WILDLIFE DISPLACEMENT AND HABITAT DESTRUCTION
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND COMMENTS

The Supreme Court of British Columbia. in Diversified Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia, 1982
CanLII 539 (BC S.C.) 1982-03-09, provides a precedent “to provide immunity from the common
law liability which would attach historically to one having a property right in wildlife which
caused damage” and states in regards to the Province’s Wildlife Act:

[12] Section 80 was first enacted in 1971 [as s. 81 [re-en. 1971, c. 69, s. 28] of the Wildlife
Act, 1966 (B.C.), c. 55] and provides, in part:
80. (1) The property in all wildlife in the Province is vested in the Crown in the right of the
Province …
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, no right of action lies and no right of compensation
exists against the Crown in right of the Province for … property damage caused by any wildlife
declared by this Act or the regulations to be property of the Crown.
2. Whether s. 80(3) of the Wildlife Act is designed only to provide immunity against one common
law liability which historically would attach to one having a property right in wildlife which
caused damage and does not provide immunity from liability for damage caused by the wrongful
acts of the Crown's servants in managing the wildlife
[16] In the beginning, Genesis said mankind should "have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth". However, as society became more sophisticated and man brought
certain animals into a state of subjection, under English law at least it was considered
appropriate to distinguish between those animals which under normal circumstances are usually
found at liberty, animals ferae naturae, and those animals which are generally tame, living in
association with man, animals mansuetae or domitae naturae.
[17] Domestic animals are the subject of absolute ownership, with all the rights, duties,
privileges and obligations that legal relationship entails.
[18] Animals ferae naturae are not the subject of absolute ownership, although a qualified
property in such animals might be acquired by taking or taming them or while they are on one's
estate. An action for damage resulting from the trespass of animals existed only in the case of
those animals in which a right of property could exist at common law.
[19] One should, in passing, note that English common law recognized a further
classification, according to the animals' propensities or disposition, in determining responsibility
for injuries caused by animals; those animals which are naturally ferocious, dangerous or
mischievous, as distinct from those of a harmless disposition. Here, responsibility does not turn
on whether the animals are naturally wild or domesticated, or on any right of property in the
animals: see Robson, Trespasses and Injuries by Animals (1915), p. 9. For the purpose of this
action we need not concern ourselves with this latter classification.

Michael J Bean and Melanie J Rowland in The Evolution of National Wildlife Law rev ed 1983
published by the Environmental Defense Fund and the World Wildlife Fund (U.S) states:

... animals ferae naturae ... were regarded as occupying a nearly unique status. The law
considered wild animals in their natural state to be like the air and the oceans, in that they
were the property of no one. Yet unlike the air and the oceans, wild animals could
become the property of anyone who captured or killed them. The only legal restriction in

Page 5 of 16
 Rome on the right to acquire property in wildlife in this way was that a private
landowner had the exclusive right to reduce to possession the wildlife on his
property. This restriction, however, was apparently more “a recognition of the right of
ownership in land than an exercise by the state of its undoubted authority to control the
taking and use of that which belonged to no one in particular, but was common to all.”
Royal power over wildlife gradually gave way to Parliament. The slow transition of
authority did not signal any great democratization of rights to wildlife, however.
Rather, the principal mechanism of parliamentary control was enactment of so-called
“qualification statutes”. These statutes prohibited the taking of game by anyone not
“qualified”, in the sense of having the requisite amount of wealth or land prescribed in
the statute.
... all of these features of English wildlife law were still current at the time of the first
settlement of the New World, although the Forest Jurisdiction had fallen into disuse.
... the essential core of English law on the eve of the American Revolution was the
complete authority of the King and Parliament to determine what right others might have
with respect to the taking of wildlife.

Pg 38 The reasoning in a recent Supreme Court takings decision, Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council
... This qualification leaves open the possibility that because a landowner’s property
right has never been construed to extend to wildlife, and because under old English
law the rights of private landowners were constrained by obligations to protect
wildlife and its habitat, 170, restrictions to protect wildlife will not require compensation.
... wildlife protection regulations are directed at wildlife, rather than at land use per se ...

The Honourable Judge H. Dhillon, in Watson v. Hayward, 2002 BCPC 259 (CanLII) 2002-07-02
identifies personal property rights in domestic animals, and no other precedents were referenced
or located which indicate that the “rights of private landowners were constrained by obligations
to protect wildlife and its habitat” statement under old English law have been removed; and
states:
In the beginning, Genesis said mankind should 'have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth'. However, as society became more sophisticated and man
brought certain animals into a state of subjection, under English law at least it was
considered appropriate to distinguish between those animals which under normal
circumstances are usually found at liberty, animals ferae naturae, and those animals
which are generally tame, living in association with man, animals mansuetae or domitae
naturae.
In the common law legal system, domestic animals are considered to be personal
property. Ownership of pets entails the same rights as does ownership of other
tangible personal property.

The Honourable Judge J. Judson, in Fleming v. Atkinson [1959] S.C.R. 513 1959-03-25
addresses reasonable care in driving cattle, which may relate to the driving and displacement
which will be done when the Beaver Pond Forest trees are cut, states:

Page 6 of 16
 “Per Taschereau and Rand JJ.: The defendant was in the same position as a drover along
the highway who, admittedly, is held to the exercise of reasonable care in driving cattle
on to or along the highway.
Per Fauteux, Abbott and Judson JJ.: The historical basis for the rule in Searle v.
Walbank, supra, dependant as it was upon the peculiarities of highway dedication in
England, has never existed in Ontario. The public right of passage on the highways of
Ontario was never subject to the risk of straying animals for the historical reason given in
that case. The highways of Ontario for the most part did not result from dedication but
were created when the province was surveyed. The fee remained in the Crown. The
rights of adjoining owners were the same as any other member of the public and no
higher. There was therefore no reason for giving adjoining owners any special rights
to permit the straying of animals.
The judgment does not touch on the question of a duty arising when he knows of the
presence of his animals on the highways or when he does an affirmative act, the
known or contemplated and inevitable consequence of which is that they go upon
the highway. The direct and obvious act would be driving them there, but the act of
being responsible for their presence is not limited to its being against or directive of
the inclination of the animal ... [if] the owner knows that the cattle will, in the
circumstances and of their own accord and inclination from use and other inducement,
pass along on to the highway, there is more than negative conduct on his part. Turning
them out in front of an open gate or opening the gate when they are turned out, with a
mind aware of what they will do, without more, is an affirmative act intended to lead and
leading to their being at large on the highway”.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 1997,
S.O. 1997 c.41 amended to 15 Dec 2009, while including some qualification regulations, has no
mention of the province having “property right in wildlife”, and that 2 other provinces, being
British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (which statements are limited to hunting), have
Wildlife Acts which prescribe the “relationship of the Crown to wildlife” and “property right in
wildlife” as being the responsibility of the province, as given in the following example:
“Wildlife Act R.S.A. 2000 c. W-10 current as of December 22, 2010
Part 2
Relationship of the Crown to Wildlife
Property in live wildlife
7(1) Subject to this section, the property in all live wildlife in Alberta is vested in the
Crown
Property in dead wildlife
8(1) After the death in Alberta of wildlife belonging to the Crown, the property in it
remains in the Crown unless the Minister transfers it to another person under section 9 or
unless
(a) it has been lawfully hunted ...”

The province of British Columbia issued Regulation 144/2004 titled Spheres of Jurisdiction –
Environment and Wildlife Regulation, which permits municipalities to “regulate, prohibit and
impose requirements” in relation to the control of listed wildlife species and the feeding or

Page 7 of 16
attracting of dangerous wildlife (excluding hunting and trapping), while no such regulation
appears to exist in Ontario.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has no apparent regulation permitting the
killing, capture, or injury of wildlife, outside of the permits to regulate hunting, trapping and
sale.

Under the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 1997, S.O. 1997 C.41 s 31(1),
authorization for a person to harass, capture, or kill wildlife is provided only where the person
“believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife is damaging or is about to damage the person’s
property”

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has no apparent responsibility for, or
authority to approve, the killing, capture or injury of Migratory Birds.

The federal Minister of the Environment has responsibility for the Migratory Birds Convention
Act, 1994 (1994, c.22), which permits the Governor in Council to make regulations providing for
the conditions under which migratory birds may be killed, captured or taken and nests damaged,
destroyed, removed or disturbed.

The federal Minister of the Environment has responsibility for the Canada Wildlife Act (R.S.,
1985, c. W-9), and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (1999, c.33), which
likewise, have no mention of the “relationship of the Crown to wildlife” and the “property right
to wildlife” or the authority to approve the killing, capture or injury of wildlife.

The federal Ministry of the Environment provides Information for Private Landowners, who
may have wildlife on their private property which are protected under the Species At Risk Act,
S.C. 2002, c.29, and which assessment as to applicability has not been undertaken by the City of
Ottawa or KNL.

The Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 S.O. 2007, Ch. 6 states:
“ Preamble
Biological diversity is among the great treasures of our planet. It has ecological, social,
economic, cultural and intrinsic value. Biological diversity makes many essential
contributions to human life, including foods, clothing and medicines, and is an important
part of sustainable social and economic development
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity takes note of the precautionary
principle, which, as described in the Convention, states that, where there is a threat of
significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should
not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat.
In Ontario, our native species are a vital component of our precious natural heritage. The
people of Ontario wish to do their part in protecting species that are at risk, with
appropriate regard to social, economic and cultural considerations. The present
generation of Ontarians should protect species at risk for future generations
Purposes
1. The purposes of this Act are:

Page 8 of 16
 1. To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information,
including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal
traditional knowledge.
2. To protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of
species that are at risk.
PROTECTION AND RECOVERY OF SPECIES
Prohibition on killing, etc.
9. (1) No person shall,
(a) kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the
Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species;
Prohibition on damage to habitat, etc.
10. (1) No person shall damage or destroy the habitat of,
(a) a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or
threatened species; or
(b) a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated species, if
the species is prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this clause. 2007, c. 6,
s. 10 (1)”

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act R.S.O. 1990, Ch O.36 states

“1. (1) In this Act,

"distress" means the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being
injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship,
privation or neglect; ("détresse")
Standards of care for animals
11.1 (1) Every person who owns or has custody or care of an animal shall comply with the
prescribed standards of care with respect to every animal that the person owns or has custody
or care of. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Prohibitions re distress, harm to an animal
Causing distress
11.2 (1) No person shall cause an animal to be in distress. 2008, c. 16, s. 8.
Exception
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of,
(a) an activity permitted under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 in relation to
wildlife in the wild;
(b) an activity permitted under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 or the Fisheries
Act (Canada) in relation to fish;
Liability of owner for expenses
15. (1) If an inspector or an agent of the Society has provided an animal with food, care or
treatment, the Society may serve on the owner or custodian of the animal a statement of
account respecting the food, care or treatment and the owner or custodian is, subject to an
order made under subsection 14 (1.2) or (1.3) or 17 (6), liable for the amount specified in the
statement of account. 2008, c. 16, s. 12.
Offences
18.1 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who,
(b) contravenes or fails to comply with section 11.1”

Page 9 of 16
The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act Regulation 60/09 Standards of
Care states:

“Application
1. (1) The basic standards of care applicable to all animals are set out in section 2. O. Reg.
60/09, s. 1 (1).
(2) In addition to the basic standards of care applicable to all animals set out in section 2,
(b) standards of care specific to wildlife kept in captivity are set out in sections 4 and 5. O. Reg.
60/09, s. 1 (2).
Basic standards of care for all animals
2. (1) Every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate food and water. O. Reg.
60/09, s. 2 (1).
(2) Every animal must be provided with adequate and appropriate medical attention. O. Reg.
60/09, s. 2 (2).
(3) Every animal must be provided with the care necessary for its general welfare. O. Reg.
60/09, s. 2 (3).
(4) Every animal must be transported in a manner that ensures its physical safety and general
welfare. O. Reg. 60/09, s. 2 (4).
Standards of care for captive wildlife
4. (1) Wildlife kept in captivity must be provided with adequate and appropriate care, facilities
and services to ensure their safety and general welfare as more specifically set out in
subsections (2) and (3) of this section and in sections 5 and 6. O. Reg. 60/09, s. 4 (1).
(2) Wildlife kept in captivity must be provided with a daily routine that facilitates and stimulates
natural movement and behaviour. O. Reg. 60/09, s. 4 (2).
(3) Wildlife kept in captivity must be kept in compatible social groups to ensure the general
welfare of the individual animals and of the group and to ensure that each animal in the group is
not at risk of injury or undue stress from dominant animals of the same or a different species.
O. Reg. 60/09, s. 4 (3)”

The Criminal Code (R.S., 1985, c. C-46) states:

PART XI
WILFUL AND FORBIDDEN ACTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
INTERPRETATION
Definition of “property”
428. In this Part, “property” means real or personal corporeal property.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 385.
Wilfully causing event to occur
429. (1) Every one who causes the occurrence of an event by doing an act or by
omitting to do an act that it is his duty to do, knowing that the act or omission will
probably cause the occurrence of the event and being reckless whether the event
occurs or not, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, wilfully to have caused
the occurrence of the event.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Causing unnecessary suffering
445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary
pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;

Page 10 of 16
 Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten
thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to
both.
Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to
exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain,
suffering or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain,
suffering or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully, as the case may be.
Causing damage or injury
446. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being
driven or conveyed; or
(b) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal
or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in
distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water,
shelter and care for it.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding five
thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both.
Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to
exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it damage or
injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the damage or injury was
caused by wilful neglect.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 446; 2008, c. 12, s. 1.

Order of prohibition or restitution
447.1 (1) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under
subsection 444(2), 445(2), 445.1(2), 446(2) or 447(2),
(b) on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused
pay to a person or an organization that has taken care of an animal or a bird as a
result of the commission of the offence the reasonable costs that the person or
organization incurred in respect of the animal or bird, if the costs are readily
ascertainable”

The Ontario Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Ch. P.13 s. 34(1) does not provide for the “property right
to wildlife” or any apparent action which could be authorized to be done by or be the
responsibility of the City of Ottawa relating to wildlife.

Page 11 of 16
The Ontario Municipal Act, 2001 (S.O. 2001, c.25 authorizes municipalities to pass by-laws
concerning animals and specifically mentions “muzzling of dogs” and “impounding of animals
being at large or trespassing contrary to the by-law”, but does not provide for the “property right
to wildlife” or any other apparent action which could be authorized to be done by or be the
responsibility of the City of Ottawa relating to displacement of wildlife or destruction of wildlife
habitat.

The City of Ottawa Official Plan section 4 Review of Development Applications section 4.7
Environmental Protection, provides objectives, studies and assessments and mitigation plans for
natural features and their ecological functions, but does not provide these for wildlife habitat
which is part of the natural features or for the protection of endangered and threatened wildlife
which are part of the ecosystem; and states:

4.7.1 – Integrated Environmental Review to Assess Development Applications

A comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the natural environment and
the built environment is the foundation of site design and subdivision planning, as well as
planning for the larger areas subject to community design plans. The integrated
environmental review considers as a whole the significant findings from individual
support studies (ie, tree preservation and protection plans, environmental impact
statements, stormwater site management plans, Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessments). It also ensures that development proceeds in keeping with the analysis and
recommendations of any watershed and subwatershed studies and federal or provincial
environmental assessments documents, where applicable. The integrated environmental
review ensures that development design complies with the environmental policies
contained in Section 4, and that the principles of design with nature have been applied.
[Amendment 13, September 8, 2004]
Policies
1. Subdivisions, and major site plans and major rezoning applications, will be
accompanied by an integrated environmental review statement demonstrating how all
the studies in support of the application influence the design of the development with
respect to effects on the environment and compliance with the appropriate policies of
Section 4. The appropriate policies and studies will be identified through pre-
consultation at the beginning of the design and review process.
2. The integrated environmental review statement will provide:
a. A brief overview of the results of individual technical studies and other
relevant environmental background material;
b. A graphic illustration, such as an air photo, summarizing the spatial features
and functions (e.g. natural vegetation, watercourses, significant slopes or

Page 12 of 16
 landform features, recharge/infiltration areas) as identified in the individual
studies;
c. A summary of the potential environmental concerns raised, the scope of
environmental interactions between studies, and the total package of
mitigation measures, including any required development conditions and
monitoring, as recommended in individual studies;

4.7.4 – Protection of Endangered Species

Endangered and threatened species are those species either listed under the regulations of
the Ontario Endangered Species Act or are considered by the provincial government to
be at risk of becoming endangered through all or a portion of its Ontario range. The
habitat of these species is identified and protected by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Wildlife habitat generally is protected through environmental designations in this Plan.
Policy

Endangered and threatened species are those listed under the regulations of the Ontario
Endangered Species Act or other provincial legislation, or are set out by amendment to
this Plan, as being at risk of becoming endangered through all or a substantial portion of
its Ontario range. Notwithstanding any policies elsewhere in this Plan, no development
or site alteration will be permitted in significant portions of the habitat of
endangered and threatened species, as identified by the Ministry of Natural
Resources. Development and site alterations on lands adjacent to the significant
portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species may be considered if
it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impact on the natural
features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified. [OMB
decision #1754, May 10, 2006]

4.7.8 – Environmental Impact Statement

In the City of Ottawa, Environmental Impact Statements will be used to assess
development adjacent to, or in some cases, within areas designated Natural
Environment Area, Significant Wetlands South and East of the Canadian Shield, Urban
Natural Features, and Rural Natural Features. These statements will be reviewed and
assessed by the City or delegated authority as a component of the development review
process.
Policies
1. There are different types of Environmental Impact Statements:
a. Comprehensive impact statements in support of large-scale planning studies,
such as watershed and subwatershed studies. Generally completed by the
municipality or other public agency, these studies may provide direction to more
detailed Environmental Impact Statements by identifying environmental features
and functions and recommending land management practices; [Amendment 13,
September 8, 2004]
b. Full site-impact statements to assess the effects of large-scale development
proposals, such as a subdivision proposal. They are prepared by a qualified

Page 13 of 16
 professional with expertise in assessing impacts on the natural environment, but
reviewed and approved by the municipality;
c. Impact statements for lands adjacent to Urban Natural Features where the
emphasis will be on managing the interface or transition zone between urban
developments and natural features in an urban context. This would include such
concerns as surface drainage adjacent to the feature; natural infiltration and soft
edges adjacent to features such as wetlands, wet meadows and moist forests;
protection of woodland edges (drip-line setbacks, soil compaction, removal and
stock-piling); and management of access and other potential issues related to
uses along the edge of the feature;
d. Scoped site-impact statements to assess the potential impacts of smaller
development proposals, such as single-lot severances, where impacts would be
minor. A scoped impact study can be as simple as a checklist of matters to be
addressed as part of the application process, and can be completed by the
applicant. Scoped site-impact studies may also be appropriate to address the
potential impacts of larger proposals if more detailed studies, such as a
comprehensive impact study, are available.
2. Environmental Impact Statements will include:
a. A map drawn to scale identifying the location and extent of the feature, a
description of the environmental values within the environmental feature or
designation which could potentially be adversely affected by the proposed
development, a description of the terrain/topography, vegetative cover and types,
soil type and depth, and surface water movement patterns;
b. A description of the proposed development;
c. A description of the impacts on the environmental feature that might reasonably
be expected to result from the proposed development;
d. A description of the actions that may be reasonably required to prevent, change,
minimize or mitigate impacts on the environmental feature as a result of the
proposed development, including the identification of opportunities for
ecological restoration, enhancement and long-term conservation of the feature;
e. A description of the flora and fauna present on the site and how the development
may impact on the flora and fauna within the site or natural feature and proposed
mitigation measures to be taken during and after construction;
f.An evaluation of the cumulative effects that the proposed development (in light of
other known projects or activities in the area) may have following mitigation
measures on the natural features and ecological functions identified in the
area;
g. A professional opinion on whether negative effects on the natural features and
ecological functions will occur, and the significance of these impacts in the
context of the evaluation of the natural area (i.e., the natural features and
functions for which the area was originally identified as significant and the
residual impact of the proposed development on the general significance rating
of the larger natural area);
h. Identification of monitoring needs and recognition of parties to be responsible
for assessing and reporting on these needs over a prescribed period of time”

Page 14 of 16
The City of Ottawa initiatives Identified in Getting Greener: On the Path of Sustainability,
Directory of Environmental Initiatives, Natural Areas Protection, Wildlife Protocol, indicates
that the focus is on human-wildlife discord, that guidance will be provided to City of Ottawa
planning staff on how to ensure that wildlife have opportunities to avoid direct conflict with
construction, and that guidelines are also available for contractors and builders to ensure that
construction sites and activities are sensitive to wildlife; however, this latter document is still in
draft form and, as of mid-December, focused on the human-wildlife conflict and did not address
many of the concerns as stated in this review document.

A court would likely find that the situation is similar to destruction of endangered and threatened
plant species which require an inventory, plan, and application for an OMNR permit to allow
mitigation to be identified prior to destruction.

The City of Ottawa By-Law Respecting Animal Care and Control BY-LAW NO. 2003 - 77 lists specific
wildlife species as Prohibited Animals in Schedule B, and, in section 83 indicates “No person shall keep in
the City, either on a temporary basis or permanent basis, any prohibited animal, as set out in Schedule
B”

Although no case law, legislation, or regulation has been located that would prevent a landowner
from driving and displacing wildlife onto adjacent property, it is highly probable that the courts
would find that a “reasonable person” would consider this situation similar to riparian rights
which prevent one landowner’s drainage being directed to another landowner’s property, as the
driving of wildlife has the foreseeable consequence of causing damage to that landowner’s
property, or causing the landowner to assume obligations relating to additional cost for the care,
treatment or removal of that wildlife.

The City of Ottawa and KNL apparently have not studied the impact of displacement of wildlife,
and have not informed the other landowners or made agreements with those landowners to
ensure that the wildlife will have no negative impact on the landowners or the wildlife and
wildlife habitat on the landowner’s property.

The City of Ottawa, as landowner, has not studied the impact of KNL’s driving and displacement
of wildlife from their property onto City-owned property, including Trillium Woods and other
portions of the South March Highlands.

The City of Ottawa has apparently not assessed the consequences, including potential liability to
other landowners, potential liability for causing wildlife to cross public highways which may
result in accidents, cost to taxpayers for subsequent protection and care of the displaced wildlife,
and impact on the existing wildlife and wildlife habitat to which the KNL wildlife will be
displaced.

The City of Ottawa has few volunteer centres which are licensed as wildlife custodians and that
the centres which are licensed to offer support are restricted in their ability to rehabilitate injured
wildlife by OMNR policies and regulations, and restricted in the capacities of their volunteers,
funds, and facilities, to deal with a wildlife displacement of this magnitude.

Page 15 of 16
Whereas there have been incidents in the City of Ottawa where individual animals were not
prevented from suffering, as reported by Wildlife Ontario on 17 April 2007:
The public is outraged over the death of this young beaver, found writhing around trying
to free its front right leg from the cruel and illegal trap that ensnared it in a wetland off a
public path in Ottawa
This incident also demonstrates the very negative impact of the loss of wildlife
rehabilitation services in Ottawa. The women who rescued the beaver were given the run
around and were completely dismayed about the lack of help. One veterinary clinic told
them that they were not allowed to help the beaver, even though the rescuers were
prepared to pay, without the prior permission of the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources!

Complied by
Faith Blacquiere
B.H.Sc., B.L.S.

Page 16 of 16