Ontario’s newly passed ban on invasive medical research involving dogs and cats appears poised to directly affect Queen’s University’s controversial hemophilia dog colony, despite the university saying it remains unclear how the legislation will impact existing research programs.
The amendments to Ontario’s Animals for Research Act were included in Bill 75 and passed final reading one week ago at Queen’s Park on Thursday, May 14, 2026. The legislation prohibits invasive medical research involving dogs and cats in Ontario, and bans breeding them for research purposes.
The move has renewed scrutiny of Queen’s University’s long-running hemophilia dog colony, which became the subject of public debate last month following Kingstonist reporting examining the university’s use of dogs in medical research.
The new law states:
“No person shall use a dog or cat, or such other animal as may be prescribed, in invasive medical research or testing.”
It also prohibits breeding dogs and cats for research purposes, stating:
“No person shall breed or permit the breeding of a dog or cat for the purpose of using the offspring in invasive medical research or testing.”
While the legislation includes exceptions for some veterinary-related research conducted “in accordance with the regulations,” the precise scope of those exemptions has not yet been publicly defined.
Animal Justice, a Canadian animal law advocacy organization that pushed for the reforms, said the legislation clearly applies to Queen’s hemophilia dog program.
“The Queen’s hemophilia dog breeding colony and the troubling experiments these dogs are forced to endure are precisely the type of testing the Ontario government intends to outlaw with the new legislation,” Animal Justice Executive Director Camille Labchuk told Kingstonist in a written statement.
Labchuk pointed to published research involving liver biopsies, portal vein injections, repeated blood collection, surgical implantation procedures, experimental viral-vector gene therapies, immunosuppressive drugs, and induced treatment protocols for bleeding episodes.
“There’s no question that these experiments are prohibited under the new legislation,” she said.
The organization’s interpretation directly challenges suggestions from Queen’s officials earlier this spring that the procedures involved in the university’s hemophilia research are “non-invasive” and comparable to routine veterinary care.
In April, university officials defended the program, arguing the dogs are purpose-bred to carry a naturally occurring genetic mutation linked to hemophilia and stating the colony has contributed to internationally significant medical advances.
Following the passage of Bill 75, Kingstonist contacted Queen’s University seeking clarification on whether the new law could affect any current or future canine research at the institution, including the hemophilia colony. Questions included whether the university believes the colony falls outside the scope of Ontario’s new restrictions, whether current or planned dog-based research could be affected, and whether Queen’s has had discussions with the province or research partners regarding the legislation.
While the university did not directly answer those questions, Queen’s communications director Julie Brown indicated that the institution is still assessing the implications of the law.
“We are unable to comment on the legislation’s passing at this time. Please refer to our full statement on the use of animals in hemophilia research at Queen’s,” Brown initially stated. That statement from August 2025 can be seen here.
After Kingstonist followed up seeking clarification on whether the university was maintaining that its research activities fell outside the law’s scope, Brown responded, “It is very early days, and we really don’t know the impact the legislation will have on Queen’s.”
No interview was made available, and the university did not clarify whether it currently believes the hemophilia colony would fall under Ontario’s new legal framework.
The legislation follows months of public pressure and scrutiny surrounding animal testing in Ontario laboratories. Animal Justice said Premier Doug Ford first pledged reforms after whistleblowers and investigators exposed invasive dog experiments at a research facility in London, Ontario.
“Premier Ford was very clear last summer that his goal was to outlaw cat and dog experiments,” Labchuk said. “You aren’t going to use pets — dogs and cats — to experiment on any longer.”
Labchuk also argued the legislation would prohibit Queen’s from continuing to breed hemophiliac dogs for research or supplying the animals to other institutions.
“It’s highly unethical to breed animals with a known genetic disease so they can face a lifetime of suffering in experiments,” she said.
The legislation has also raised questions about what may happen to existing research animals if programs are forced to shut down.
Earlier this year, Queen’s officials indicated dogs in the hemophilia colony could potentially be euthanized if the research program could no longer continue, but Animal Justice argued that need not occur.
“We have been advocating to require that animals be adopted out at the end of experiments instead of simply killed,” Labchuk said.
She contended that researchers have an ethical obligation to seek homes for animals used in research and pointed to the recently updated Canadian Council on Animal Care ethics principles, which recognize that animals should have opportunities to enjoy life after scientific use.
Labchuk also disputed suggestions that genetically modified research animals cannot legally be rehomed, arguing federal exemptions already exist and noting similar exemptions have previously been used in cases involving primates transferred to sanctuaries.
Animal Justice has further argued that Canada’s animal research oversight system operates within what it describes as a “regulatory vacuum,” noting that the Canadian Council on Animal Care oversees standards through guidelines rather than through enforceable federal legislation.
While the current law applies specifically to dogs and cats, the legislation also allows Ontario to extend restrictions to additional animals through future regulations.
Labchuk said Animal Justice expects public scrutiny surrounding primate research to intensify, particularly following recent allegations involving macaques used in research at York University.
“These new laws are part of a long overdue conversation about the ethics of animal experimentation,” she said. “We expect public discussion and legislation to continue to evolve.”
Animal Justice also indicated it intends to monitor how Ontario laboratories respond to the new legislation and said the organization would consider legal action if researchers attempt to circumvent the law.
On Thursday, May 21, 2026, Kingstonist asked Queen’s University to respond to Animal Justice’s interpretation of the legislation, including whether the university disputes claims that the hemophilia research procedures described in published studies would qualify as invasive under Bill 75. No additional response had been received by publication time. Kingstonist will update this article when more information becomes available.
Earlier this week, Kingstonist reached out to the provincial government for comment on the matter; no response has been received.
