{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01859504132231405, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.9447852760736195, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ontario courts award compensation for emotional distress associated with the loss of a pet.

The recent pet illnesses and deaths associated with the consumption of contaminated food have raised the issue of compensation for these losses. Affected pet owners may have been required to pay for expensive veterinary treatment. Those less fortunate may have lost a pet. All will have experienced some degree of emotional distress resulting from the illness or death of an animal that may be considered a member of the family. Based on the presumption that manufacturer liability can be proven, what is the correct measure of compensation (or damages) — replacement of the contaminated food; reimbursement of the owner’s out of pocket expenses, including veterinary bills, lost wages, and travel expenses; the cost of a new pet? Or should the pet owner also be entitled to damages for the emotional pain and suffering sustained as a result of their pet’s sickness or death?