## Facts

- Philippe Tremblay and his hunting partners were hunting moose in Quebec.
- Tremblay’s party saw a moose walking normally through the forest; Tremblay shot, the moose fell, and he fired four additional shots to kill it.
- Tremblay’s group began bleeding and gutting the moose at the site.
- Olivier Boivin arrived while the carcass was being dressed and claimed he had shot the same moose first and wounded it.
- Boivin stated he had tracked the moose by following drops of blood for about 30 minutes over roughly 1.5 miles.
- Tremblay’s party offered Boivin a quarter of the moose to settle the dispute; Boivin left to consult his father and brother.
- The Boivins returned demanding one half of the moose and its head; Tremblay’s party refused.
- As Tremblay’s group attempted to drag the moose away, the Boivins became threatening, shoved Tremblay’s party, and cut the rope used to move the carcass.
- To avoid further violence, Tremblay’s party said they would return with an official to resolve the matter and told the Boivins to leave the moose in place.
- The Boivins instead removed the moose.
- Tremblay and his partners sued the Boivins and their companions for $1,600 in damages.

## Issues

1. Does a hunter acquire ownership of a wild animal merely by wounding it, or only by taking possession through killing it or wounding it so severely that capture is imminent and certain?
2. If Tremblay’s party owned the moose, what damages were recoverable for the defendants’ forcible taking?

## Decision

- The court found that Tremblay’s party acquired ownership of the moose by killing it and taking physical possession of the carcass while dressing it.
- The court rejected Boivin’s claim of prior ownership because the evidence did not show his initial shots reduced the moose to a state where its capture was imminent and certain; it had traveled a substantial distance after the alleged wounding.
- The defendants were held liable for wrongfully taking the moose from the plaintiffs’ possession.
- The court awarded the plaintiffs $325 (with interest from service of the action and costs), holding the defendants liable jointly and solidarily.
- Claimed items framed as non-economic or “moral” loss (such as loss of enjoyment connected with sharing meat or keeping a trophy) were not awarded on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Wild animals are not owned until acquired by occupation (taking possession with intent to appropriate).
- For wild animals, occupation requires effective control: killing the animal, or injuring it so seriously that it can no longer escape and the hunter can take it into physical custody.
- Mere pursuit, tracking, or an injury that still leaves the animal capable of escaping does not transfer ownership.
- A party found in peaceful, physical possession of the animal (here, the carcass being dressed) benefits from a presumption of ownership; the challenger must present strong proof of an earlier, legally sufficient taking.
- When property is wrongfully taken in these circumstances, recoverable damages are limited to proven pecuniary loss (such as the animal’s value), not speculative or purely non-economic claims.

## Conclusion

The Quebec Superior Court held that Tremblay and his hunting partners owned the moose because they killed it and were in physical possession when the Boivins used threats and force to take it; Boivin’s earlier alleged wounding and blood-tracking did not amount to occupation because it did not make capture imminent and certain, so the defendants were condemned to pay the moose’s value ($325) with interest and costs, while non-economic claims were refused.


Tremblay et Autres v. Boivin et Autres, [1960] C.S. 235