Loki
August 23rd, 2005, 05:27 PM
http://www.canada.com/toronto/news/story.html?id=492da780-64cf-488f-823c-424d561629ad
Legal challenge launched vs. pit bull ban
Shannon Montgomery
Canadian Press
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
ADVERTISEMENT
TORONTO -- Irate dog breeders in Canada's most populous province are mounting a legal challenge to Ontario's controversial plan pit bull ban on the grounds that the law, which takes effect Monday, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The plaintiffs and their supporters, which include the American Staffordshire Club of Canada, argue that the provincial law is so vague and unscientific that it's bound to capture many animals that defenders say shouldn't be banned.
Critics of the law are turning to the courts because they're fed up with the province ignoring their concerns, said club president and founder Cathy Prothro.
"We've been ostracized for owning our breed of choice, we've been persecuted for owning our breed of choice, and I think people are tired of it," Prothro said in an interview.
"Dog people just aren't going to sit down and take it anymore."
The legislation has fanned the flames of an already heated debate across Canada about the dangers of pit bulls as passionate and faithful owners square off against neighbours and critics who consider the breed nothing short of a dangerous weapon.
As of Monday, it will be illegal for a pit bull to be imported into Ontario, although existing owners, who are allowed to keep their dogs on a restricted basis provided they're sterilized and muzzled and leashed in public, will have 60 days to comply with the new law.
Puppies that are born in Ontario before Nov. 27 will also be allowed to stay on a restricted basis, but dogs born after that date must be shipped out of the province, sent to a research facility or euthanized.
Under the new regulations, four breeds are defined as pit bulls: pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers. The legislation also bans dogs with physical characteristics that are "substantially similar to those dogs."
"We feel it's unconstitutional; it targets responsible dog owners and it's not targeting the real problem, which is irresponsible dog owners," said Prothro, who has helped raise $100,000 towards a legal bill that's expected to come in at about $250,000.
"Their definition of a pit bull ...could be just about anything that's short-haired and muscular."
Breese Davies, a Toronto lawyer who is working on the suit with high-profile lawyer Clayton Ruby, refused to reveal the individual named in the challenge until Monday's scheduled news conference.
But she said there are five groups -- three breed clubs, the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and another group called Advocates for the Underdog -- which have formed a coalition of supporters, dubbed Banned Aid, to help with the cause.
Pit bulls are already banned in several cities across Canada, including Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., Windsor, Ont., and Winnipeg, but the constitutional challenge marks the first time one of the bans has been tested in court.
Brendan Crawley, spokesman for the province's Ministry of the Attorney General, said the government won't comment on the challenge until it is officially filed, although he noted that the ministry reviews all draft legislation to ensure that it is constitutional.
Many similar challenges have been brought in the United States, and most have failed, although one or two have been successful, Davies acknowledged. But the laws in the two countries are so different it's not a fair comparison, she added.
Davies said the law is vague, overbroad and places the onus on the dog owner to prove they haven't done anything wrong, which she said constitutes a violation of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 7 is intended to protect an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from the actions of the government.
"If an individual can go to jail as a result of the legislation, which you can under the new provisions of the act, the law on which you are going to be denied your liberty can't be vague or overbroad," Davies explained.
"It's going to capture dogs that are perfectly safe, that pose no harm to anybody, whose owners are perfectly responsible, who are sound, safe, happy dogs that will not pose a risk to the community."
© Canadian Press 2005
Legal challenge launched vs. pit bull ban
Shannon Montgomery
Canadian Press
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
ADVERTISEMENT
TORONTO -- Irate dog breeders in Canada's most populous province are mounting a legal challenge to Ontario's controversial plan pit bull ban on the grounds that the law, which takes effect Monday, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The plaintiffs and their supporters, which include the American Staffordshire Club of Canada, argue that the provincial law is so vague and unscientific that it's bound to capture many animals that defenders say shouldn't be banned.
Critics of the law are turning to the courts because they're fed up with the province ignoring their concerns, said club president and founder Cathy Prothro.
"We've been ostracized for owning our breed of choice, we've been persecuted for owning our breed of choice, and I think people are tired of it," Prothro said in an interview.
"Dog people just aren't going to sit down and take it anymore."
The legislation has fanned the flames of an already heated debate across Canada about the dangers of pit bulls as passionate and faithful owners square off against neighbours and critics who consider the breed nothing short of a dangerous weapon.
As of Monday, it will be illegal for a pit bull to be imported into Ontario, although existing owners, who are allowed to keep their dogs on a restricted basis provided they're sterilized and muzzled and leashed in public, will have 60 days to comply with the new law.
Puppies that are born in Ontario before Nov. 27 will also be allowed to stay on a restricted basis, but dogs born after that date must be shipped out of the province, sent to a research facility or euthanized.
Under the new regulations, four breeds are defined as pit bulls: pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers. The legislation also bans dogs with physical characteristics that are "substantially similar to those dogs."
"We feel it's unconstitutional; it targets responsible dog owners and it's not targeting the real problem, which is irresponsible dog owners," said Prothro, who has helped raise $100,000 towards a legal bill that's expected to come in at about $250,000.
"Their definition of a pit bull ...could be just about anything that's short-haired and muscular."
Breese Davies, a Toronto lawyer who is working on the suit with high-profile lawyer Clayton Ruby, refused to reveal the individual named in the challenge until Monday's scheduled news conference.
But she said there are five groups -- three breed clubs, the Dog Legislation Council of Canada and another group called Advocates for the Underdog -- which have formed a coalition of supporters, dubbed Banned Aid, to help with the cause.
Pit bulls are already banned in several cities across Canada, including Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., Windsor, Ont., and Winnipeg, but the constitutional challenge marks the first time one of the bans has been tested in court.
Brendan Crawley, spokesman for the province's Ministry of the Attorney General, said the government won't comment on the challenge until it is officially filed, although he noted that the ministry reviews all draft legislation to ensure that it is constitutional.
Many similar challenges have been brought in the United States, and most have failed, although one or two have been successful, Davies acknowledged. But the laws in the two countries are so different it's not a fair comparison, she added.
Davies said the law is vague, overbroad and places the onus on the dog owner to prove they haven't done anything wrong, which she said constitutes a violation of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 7 is intended to protect an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from the actions of the government.
"If an individual can go to jail as a result of the legislation, which you can under the new provisions of the act, the law on which you are going to be denied your liberty can't be vague or overbroad," Davies explained.
"It's going to capture dogs that are perfectly safe, that pose no harm to anybody, whose owners are perfectly responsible, who are sound, safe, happy dogs that will not pose a risk to the community."
© Canadian Press 2005