Menaces to Society: A Posthhumanist Rethinking of Canine Capital Punishment in Ontario

Daniel Dylan

Alberta Law Review2025https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2833article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This article presents a critical analysis of Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA), focusing on its ethical and legal shortcomings. First, it highlights that DOLA permits courts to order the destruction of dogs deemed dangerous, a practice compared to capital punishment — which is something that has been abolished for humans in Canada. Second, it contends that dogs are often punished for actions that stem from human negligence, lack of training, or provocation, yet receive no legal representation or procedural fairness. Third, the critique underscores the speciesism inherent in the law, which treats dogs as property rather than as sentient beings. Finally, it proposes reform through alternatives such as provincially funded rehabilitation sanctuaries, aiming to promote a more compassionate and just legal framework.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2833

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{daniel2025,
  title        = {{Menaces to Society: A Posthhumanist Rethinking of Canine Capital Punishment in Ontario}},
  author       = {Daniel Dylan},
  journal      = {Alberta Law Review},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2833},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Menaces to Society: A Posthhumanist Rethinking of Canine Capital Punishment in Ontario

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.