The Ontario government has introduced draft legislation that aims to restrict invasive medical research on dogs and cats.
It is the first proposed law of its kind in Canada, triggered by an Investigative Journalism Bureau investigation in August that detailed cardiac research on dogs inside St. Joseph’s Hospital in London. The research involved inducing hours-long heart attacks in puppies.
If passed, the proposed legislation would restrict the practice of invasive experimentation on dogs and cats, except for specified purposes such as veterinary research. The bill also prohibits breeding cats or dogs in Ontario for research purposes.
“If passed intact, this will be one of the most meaningful scientific and ethical shifts in Canada’s modern history,” said Charu Chandrasekera, founder and executive director of the Canadian Institute for Animal-Free Science.
Bill 75, which includes provisions that would amend the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government on Nov. 25.
The legislation defines invasive medical research as that which alters an animal’s “physical integrity,” causes “significant impact” to the animal’s physiological systems or results in moderate to severe pain, “extreme distress or death.”
“This legislation is aimed at invasive procedures,” said Trevor Jones, Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness, in a press conference Tuesday. “We protect veterinary sciences, we protect that invasive research that has to be done for both animal and human life-saving research, but we make sure humane treatment is safeguarded. And this Premier is very clear, and this government is very clear. We will not tolerate inhumane treatment of any animal.”
The legislation would also ban “medically unnecessary” procedures performed for cosmetic purposes or convenience, such as removing vocal cords or declawing. The types of permitted invasive procedures will be outlined in future regulations.
“The abuse of dogs and cats in harmful research has two problems: it is not morally permissible, and it has not and will not be predictive of human outcomes,” said Ari Joffe, a clinical professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Alberta.
“This legislation is a commendable first step toward replacing harmful non-human animal research with new approach methodologies.”
Animal welfare groups hailed the draft language as a major step forward.
“Ontario is taking a groundbreaking step by introducing laws to end the cruel and outdated use of dogs and cats in experiments,” said Camille Labchuk, lawyer and executive director of Animal Justice.
“People across the province see these animals as family, and there is little social license left for research that causes them fear, pain, and death — especially given that there are an increasing number of non-animal research methods that can produce superior data.”
Some experts and animal rights advocates are concerned that the legislation focuses on dogs and cats, rather than all species that can feel comparable pain.
“Surely what should matter, from an ethical perspective, is a particular animal’s level of development, such as whether it can experience pain and suffering, not whether politicians have them as pets at home,” said Udo Schüklenk, a professor of philosophy at Queen’s University and the Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics.
Schüklenk believes the legislation would also have damaging impacts on research in Ontario.
“Valuable clinical research that could lead to medical breakthroughs benefiting generations of people will be undertaken elsewhere,” said Schüklenk. “None of that makes sense.”
During a press conference on August 25, when Premier Doug Ford announced his intentions to ban testing on dogs and cats, he said pets are held to a different standard than other animals.
“They are part of our family,” the Premier said.
Pierre Verrault, executive director of the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) – Canada’s national oversight body for the use of animals in scientific research – said Thursday he and his colleagues are still reviewing the draft legislation.
“We are keen to work with the government and government bodies throughout this process, and to better understand the direction on this issue, the consultation process, as well as any impacts on the ability of scientific research to be conducted in Ontario.”
Andrew Fenton, co-chair of the CCAC’s ethics guidelines development committee, said invasive veterinary research should be further restricted in any final legislation.
“If it’s going to be invasive and cause severe pain, it better be in the animals’ best interests and promise them benefits. If it doesn’t, they shouldn’t be exposed to severe pain for veterinary medical research. That’s missing from these regulations. There’s no mention of a dog or cat’s best interest.”
Angela Fernandez, director of the Animal Law program at the University of Toronto, said the legislation, while novel, doesn’t go far enough.
“In addition to a ban on breeding dogs and cats in the province for research purposes, there needs to be a ban on importing them from other jurisdictions. Research facilities will continue to experiment on non-locally produced dogs and cats brought in from the U.S. and other provinces unless that loophole is closed.”
Last week, the IJB’s ongoing investigation into animal testing detailed how a Scarborough scientific research facility has been importing test dogs from a Wisconsin-based breeder accused of animal cruelty dating back years, including mutilating the eye glands and vocal cords of beagles without anesthesia.
The Wisconsin firm recently surrendered its breeding licence in exchange for the state agreeing not to pursue criminal charges. The agreement stipulated that the company made “no admission of fault or criminal or civil liability” in entering into the agreement.
The Scarborough research facility has not commented.
The IJB investigation into the dog testing program in London, Ont., published in August, revealed that puppies as young as 10 months old were being imported from the U.S. and subjected to induced heart attacks for hours before being euthanized. The research was conducted under the Lawson Research Institute at St. Joseph’s Health Care London.
The publicly-funded research was approved and met “the highest standards of, and is in compliance with, all scientific and ethics protocols,” according to a statement issued by the hospital at the time.
Whistleblowers claimed the research was kept secret within the hospital, with loud music used to cover barking and a “code of silence” enforced by management. The hospital shut down the dog testing program following publication and Premier Doug Ford committed to stopping the practice across the province.
Research involving animals is often a “necessary step before translating innovative therapies and diagnostic tests into clinical practice that improves human health,” the hospital said, adding that “other effective models don’t yet exist for this specific line of inquiry.”
But there remains vigorous debate among researchers over whether the research requires the sacrifice of dogs.
Chandrasekera said Canadians should not be concerned that the proposed legislation, if passed, would end medical progress given the developments in modelling and alternative testing methods.
“Modern science doesn’t require inducing three-hour heart attacks or force-feeding chemicals to dogs. Real progress comes from science rooted in human biology—not biology borrowed from dogs or cats.”
- Behind the Reporting: Measuring the justice system’s response to the killings of Indigenous women and girls - 12 February 2026
- IJB Gets Action: Ontario NDP demands changes to hospital funding model after IJB investigation - 5 February 2026
- Why Ontario hospitals are turning to bank loans to stay afloat - 29 January 2026