The learned trial judge expressly found, on the facts as accepted by him, facts which are supported by the evidence, that no liability rested upon the defendant for either negligence or nuisance. He then went on and dealt with the question of liability in trespass founded upon counsels’ submissions thereon. At p. 10 of his reasons for judgment he stated: “There is no evidence before this court that the defendant acted unreasonably in exercising it’s statutory authority to manage the deer population in the Barrier Valley Area of Saskatchewan. Historically however, there was a common law liability attaching to one having a property right in wildlife which caused damage: Brady v. Warden (1900) I.R. 632. “Obviously the Crown in Saskatchewan has the ownership and property right in all white-tailed deer in the province along with numerous other wild animals unless specifically stated to the contrary: The Wildlife Act. s. 4.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.