Pit bull ban to face constitutional challenge

[size=-1]Canada -- [/size]Ontario's attorney general says he's certain that the province's pit bull ban will survive a constitutional challenge. Michael Bryant says the law that banned the dogs and put in severe penalties, including hefty fines and jail time, for violators was carefully crafted.

Renowned lawyer Clayton Ruby will argue in court next Monday that the ban is overbroad and too vague.

Ruby is acting on behalf of Catherine Cochrane who owns a pit bull and wants to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

The Dog Owners' Liability Act with the ban came into effect last August.

It requires pit bulls to be muzzled in public, leashed and sterilized and also bans the breeding of pit bulls.


http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060509/pit_bull_court_060509/20060509?hub=TorontoHome

 

i think it should not be banned to own pitbulls, i think that byb's should be shut down and all dogs found on premisies with many dogs should have so many days to get them all sterilized! what happenes if a ban like this passes and you have had a pit bull for 10 years/?? what happenes to people already owning dogs?? just wondering! thanks!

 

I have wondered that same thing...

 

as a rule there is a grandfather clause where if you have had dogs before the ban they have to be altered and muzzeled or something like that,as a rule they also have to be registered with the city and microchipped.then after the dog/dogs die you cant own anymore.thats usually how it is done but each city has it's own way of doing things.

 

what if you have a show dog. You can not have altered dogs in show ring.

 

Like they really cae about that. The government just wants to look good for all the people out there who refuse to be educated on the truth about pitbulls. They don't care about your dogs' show careers. It's unfortunate, but true. They'll probably say something like "petition the ADBA to change their rules" or some crap.

 

Update... Ontario's controversial pit bull ban is facing a constitutional challenge in court next week, but the province's attorney general said Tuesday he is certain the law will survive. Michael Bryant said the law that bans the dogs and slaps violators with severe penalties, including hefty fines and jail time, was carefully crafted. "We're very confident that the bill will pass any and all constitutional scrutiny," Bryant said. "An enormous amount of work went into providing clarity to the bill and definitions. It's been described by ... one expert south of the border as the most comprehensive legislation of its kind."

Renowned lawyer Clayton Ruby will argue in court next Monday that the ban is "too vague and over-broad," and therefore unconstitutional.

Witnesses for both the defence and prosecution "agree that most pit bull dogs are kind, loving dogs that would not bite anyone," Ruby said in an interview.

"If there's a large number of dogs that don't fit within the danger, then that's over-broad legislation."

"If imprisonment is a consequence, legislatures cannot pass laws that are vague or over-broad. The law has to be certain so that each Canadian can know what they have to do in order to comply or not comply with the law."

The description of a pit bull in the legislation is also too vague and could punish some dogs and owners unnecessarily, Ruby said.

He noted that veterinarians can't easily determine if a dog is a pit bull without a full breeding history, since many dogs share the traits that characterize pit bulls: muscular bodies with broad shoulders, strong hindquarters and large heads.

The ban, part of the Dog Owners' Liability Act, came into effect last August.

It requires pit bulls to be muzzled in public, leashed and sterilized, and also bans breeding of the animals.

Owners who violate the law can be fined up to $10,000 or sentenced to up to six months in jail or both - the first time imprisonment has been included in the province's dangerous dog legislation.

If the court determines an owner has violated the law, the dog is destroyed.

Ruby is acting on behalf of Catherine Cochrane, the owner of a two-year-old pit bull mix. Cochrane announced last August that she would fight the law forcing her to muzzle her pet.

Cochrane is backed by a group of pro-dog organizations calling themselves the Banned Aid Coalition.

The difficulty in identifying pit bulls was the focus of a case in Sarnia, Ont., in which a justice of the peace wasn't convinced by a veterinarian's opinion that the dog was indeed a pit bull.

The owner of the dog was cleared of all charges - one of the first challenges of the new law.

"The first words of the judge are, 'This legislation is vague,' " Ruby said. "Well, vague is unconstitutional."

That ruling doesn't affect the government's case, Bryant said, since that was a municipal interpretation of the law, while Ruby's client is challenging the provincial law as a whole.

In a statement filed in court, Ruby argues that the government is relying on questionable data to prove that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs.

"No Canadian statistics or empirical data have been provided to show that the so-called 'pit bull' is inherently more prone to bite or attack," the statement says.

Ruby points out that a 1996 study found that pit bulls accounted for just four per cent of reported dog bites in Toronto, ranking ninth among identified breeds.

The statement also claims that dog bite statistics are unreliable because the description of the dog often comes from someone who isn't familiar with breeds and thus misidentifies it as a pit bull.

But Bryant said it's clear to him that since the law came into effect, there have been fewer attacks by pit bulls. There were several brutal attacks on people by the dogs in the years leading up to the law's passage.

"There's no question in my mind that the bill has already had a very significant effect in decreasing the number of pit bull attacks," Bryant said.

"We were going through a time a couple of years ago where not a week would go by where a vicious pit bull attack was not the subject of at least a public report."


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/05/09/1571667-cp.html

 

to be honest they dont care if it is a show dog or not,they only have one thing on their minds making our breed extinct.

 

wow! this all has prompted me to see if there are any laws in my area on these dogs. i would be pissed if i spent time and energy and love on a dog and then was told i had to keep it locked away or tied up like a dirty secret!!! this makes me sick!

 

Well, go get 'em Ruby!

The thing that I find upsetting is that legislators all seem to base their opinions on "bite statistics".
Bite statistics come from information based on "reported" bites, that have been documented. Of COURSE, "pit bulls" will lead "the way"=their stories sell. I imagine people scurry around trying to document every "pit bull" biting occurrance.
What about ALL the other bites that go UNreported. The ones you and I don't seem to "hear" about, because they didn't headline?!!!!:mad: and no one "bothered " to report them...

I brought this point up before the councilors at the Salem, MA. meeting, and many were unaware of this point.
Seems one sided to me......

 

more:



Attention News Editors:

Press advisory - Ruby & Edwardh

TORONTO, May 8 /CNW/ - << What?: Constitutional Challenge to Ontario's Pit Bull Legislation Where?: Superior Court of Justice Toronto, Ontario When?: Monday, May 15, 2006 and Tuesday, May 16, 2006 Beginning at 10:00 a.m. Why?: Because Canadians do not imprison dog owners based on vague and overbroad legislation >> On August 29, 2005 new amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act cameinto effect banning the ownership of pit bulls in Ontario. Ms Catherine Cochrane, with the support of the Banned Aid Coalition,filed an application seeking to strike down the new law as unconstitutional.Ms Cochrane is represented by Clayton Ruby. On Monday, May 15 and Tuesday, May 16, 2006 the constitutional challengewill be heard at the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario beginningat 10:00 a.m. Mr. Ruby will argue that the law is vague and overbroad.For further information: or if you'd like a copy of the applicant'swritten argument that will be before the court, please contact CarolineWawzonek at Ruby & Edwardh at (416) 964-9664