Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Court Date

pitbulliest
May 9th, 2006, 07:32 PM
The court dates are the 15th (Monday) and 16th (Tuesday)...pretty much next week. Who is going to attend?

I'm planning on showing up at like maybe 7 or 8 in the morning so that I can actually get a good seat. If anyone is planning on showing up early for the same reasons, maybe we can go together or meet somewhere beforehand so that we don't end up sitting alone....I might not know anyone there (scared) LOL

mummummum
May 9th, 2006, 10:38 PM
What are the details Pitbulliest ?

babyrocky1
May 10th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Its the courthouse at Queen and University, Im not gong til noonish, will try and get in during a break but I doubt that I will be able to. I think the proceedings start at ten am and are supposed to go til around five, but Im not sure how they can predict what time they would end. Look for me lurking in the halls if Im not in the court room. I used to draw in the courts and it seemed to me that they took alot of breaks, im hoping to get in on one of them :fingerscr

babyrocky1
May 10th, 2006, 05:54 PM
..I might not know anyone there (scared) LOL Oh you will know people there LOL

Luvmypit
May 11th, 2006, 12:32 PM
Is it too much to ask for someone who is going to bring a pad of paper and jot down some notes? If not its ok just wanted to know what was going.

I do not know how I am going to be able to sit here at work all day on Mon and tues and not lose my mind.

Georgiapeaches
May 11th, 2006, 01:36 PM
I'm going to Toronto on Tuesday. Not sure what time exactly ...but I'm going.

Luvmypit
May 15th, 2006, 12:37 PM
Todays the day. Please if anyone has gone, I am dying here wanting to know about happened or whats happening.

The suspense.....

Invicta
May 15th, 2006, 01:00 PM
For those who couldn't get to court today. Steve Barker has updated his blog over the lunch break.

http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/2006/05/court-report-may-15-115pm.html

Luvmypit
May 15th, 2006, 01:17 PM
Thanks Invicta for the FYI and Steve for the update!!

:o

mastifflover
May 15th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Thanks for keeping us updated I hope we will see these dogs with no muzzles soon, only one for MB

Daisy_Mae
May 15th, 2006, 03:27 PM
Great Blog thanks for sharing. My rescue group sent me 2 emails to vote/support pit bulls if anyone is interested:

Quick, go to newstoday@cbc.ca.
They are doing a survey on what their viewers think of the pitbull ban.
Send an email, keep it simple so they may use it on air, tell them what you think!!!!!!

Keep up the email. Pass the word!!!

I sent an email and got an automated response.

Go Vote, we are losing big time!

http://www.ctv.ca

They also have an update from today's proceedings

The vote is on the right side of the page.

lezzpezz
May 15th, 2006, 05:01 PM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147687306316&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

lezzpezz
May 15th, 2006, 06:21 PM
Oh brother....reported to me by an avid BSL fighter after watching the local news:

Press interviewed 2 idiots who had 1) an illegal pb pup, and then gave their name and address! (to make it really simple for ACC to come and bust her!)
2) an unleashed but muzzled pb in the city owned off leash park who also gave her complete name and address....

All of this on tape....all of this counterproductive....both just blatant infractions of DOLA/Bill 132...for all to see.....

That's the dirt in London....folks think they are apparently above the law.....


thanks alot:mad:

babyrocky1
May 15th, 2006, 07:53 PM
Violet and I were there this afternoon, along with alot of other folks whom we have met at various "functions" I thought our Clayton was great and his assistant was really good as well. She talked about the conflict with an existing Federal law. Steve will update you all in a much more specific way than I can though. Keep checking his blog. I was busy drawing horns on my doodles of the Bryant pons! Not that helpful,, but I enjoyed it.... The judge did ask alot of quesitons, I dont know what that indicates, Im hoping to get more of a sense of how shes thinking once I see how she responds to the crown. I dont think tomorrow will be as uplifting, and apparantly it could take quite some time to get a decision.

twodogsandacat
May 15th, 2006, 09:18 PM
The judge did ask alot of quesitons, I dont know what that indicates, Im hoping to get more of a sense of how shes thinking once I see how she responds to the crown.

I’d say that's good. She's not just letting Mr. Ruby speak and then wave him on so she can get to the Crown's side; she's actually listening and seeking the truth. It's all good.

twodogsandacat
May 16th, 2006, 06:22 AM
I imagine that Michael Bryant’s side will come in and tell of individual cases where pit bulls attacked. While each will be horrific they will touch only the surface of the issue of dangerous dogs – an individual attack by an individual dog or group of dogs. If the changes to the DOLA where to address dangerous dogs then you would think that dogs that kill would be the most dangerous. The one paragraph below shows that in Canada pit bulls could be dangerous they don’t justify the individual attention that Bill 132 put on them. To note in the 23 cases cited by Ruby over fifty dogs were involved.

In fact around the time frame Bill 132 was making headlines there were two attacks within a year that resulted in deaths in Canada – Bryant described the breed involved as not an issue…because they weren’t pits. Dangerous dogs and killer dogs apparently aren’t the same thing in his mind. Hopefully a fact that won’t get lost on the judge.

Since 1983, only one of 23 reported national fatalities from dog attacks involved so-called pit bulls, he said. A report on dog bites at eight Canadian hospitals in the mid-1990s showed that pit bulls were nowhere near the top of the list of offenders, he said. German shepherds led the pack, followed by cocker spaniels, Rottweilers and golden retrievers, according to the report.
SOURCE: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1147729810830&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

Conners
May 16th, 2006, 10:45 AM
In Steves report did you see where it said 85% of those against the ban were not recognized. I knew the BAST*RD LIED!!!!

Conners
May 16th, 2006, 10:48 AM
I'm going to Toronto on Tuesday. Not sure what time exactly ...but I'm going.
I was wondering who would give us summaries of Tuesday as Steve says he is home now, so it doesn't seem as if he will be in court today (unless he lives in Toronto????) Anyone know if he is in the court room today too?

Copper'sMom
May 16th, 2006, 01:24 PM
Steve's in court! He has updated his blog as of 1:30 on this mornings events!

seeker
May 16th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Steve's in court! He has updated his blog as of 1:30 on this mornings events!
How can I find the blog ???

Schwinn
May 16th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Here's his home page...

http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/

seeker
May 16th, 2006, 04:17 PM
.....Thanks !

CyberKitten
May 16th, 2006, 06:39 PM
Thx for the updates - our local news interviewed some pitties and their owners last nite, was v. positive.

Georgiapeaches
May 16th, 2006, 07:47 PM
I imagine that Michael Bryant’s side will come in and tell of individual cases where pit bulls attacked. While each will be horrific they will touch only the surface of the issue of dangerous dogs – an individual attack by an individual dog or group of dogs.


Yes , they did do exactly that today. :rolleyes:

babyrocky1
May 16th, 2006, 08:56 PM
Yes they did, today was hard to take, the crown went into very graphic detail. It was quite upsetting for me, mostly because the one case that he described so graphically, I was not familiar with. I was trying to rationalise that there wre probably circumstances we were not I was not aware of and I found out later that that was the case. The judge only let him go so far and then questioned his motivations. She questioned them alot. Steve was there the whole day and will be there again on Thursday mornning. He can give the best lowdown, Georgia were you there? Did we meet. I was pretty hyped up after all that, I had forgotten that you said you were going.
Anyways, they brought up the Toronto incident, and that made me furious but the way things work is that all of our side is in the records already, so Clayton has dealt with it all previously and then when they judge reviews the whole thing, and there has been months of testimony, she will have all of he information, but I just felt like jumping up and screaming "objection"! for most of the afternoon. Relax everyone, I didnt do it LOL
So now we wait til Thursday for the end of the hearings and then we WAIT......some more..... I felt really bad for some of the people in the DLCC they have come from all over the country for this and some of them couldnt stay.

Copper'sMom
May 17th, 2006, 12:25 AM
In regards to Tuesday afternoon's presentation, it still boils down to owners being irresponsible. I do know of the Brantford incident and all I can say is I'd like to kick those dog's owner in the donkey to the moon and back!:mad: If it weren't for stupid owners, pit bulls would not have to show their tenacious side. It's not their fault, it's man's fault as this was a desired trait bred into the dog so many years ago just so it would last longer in a pit.:sad: It's up to US (because we are human) to control, train, teach our dogs and keep them from harms way or from harming others. Know your dog, like you know the back of your hand!~

Dukieboy
May 18th, 2006, 03:25 PM
FYI, Steves blog is updated. Much thanks to him for his efforts:grouphug:

babyrocky1
May 18th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Hi all, I went to court this morning, for factual details, check out Steves Blog listed above. Hes been doing a great job keeping everyone informed. I got there just in tie to hear Mr. Rubys closing arguments, which is what I went for. I think that what we have to hang on to is the fact that we have the best lawyer possible, we have a fair judge that understands the issues, or so it seems to me, and the Mr. Ruby seemed able to deal with anything the crown tried to raise. Still though, this is constitutional law, and complicated even for the judge, so for us to try and speculate is just impossible, but it seems to me that the BEST was done for us, and we did our BEST to make it happen. In this case, we got what we deserved, the best lawyer, with the best evidence. I cant begin to tell you how odd it was actually being there, taking the government to court, for our dogs, after all this time of feeling victimized, it was hard to wrap my head around the fact that we were in high court, insisting that the government defend their actions!
Its been such a long road to get here and I know how many dedicated people its taken, people from this site and others and people in our "movement" in general, I know this fight is far from over, but today we should all feel very proud of ourselves, we never gave up, and we never will. Congrats everybody:grouphug: :highfive:

seeker
May 18th, 2006, 06:27 PM
I have never bothered much with politics in general and have to admit that there were times when I did not even bother to vote .
This law seemed to hit me right between the eyes and I can honestly state that as long as we have the right and I am physically able I will seek enough information about election issues and the parties themselves so that I will be able to make an informed decision before I cast a vote in the future.
You are right babyrocky the fight is not over and the effort from many of us here and from many that are not here has been a great one.
As you said win or lose we did it right by hiring Ruby and then working like possesed people to raise the money to pay him .
I was unable to attend court but turning on the computer once I got home from work was the first thing I did every night this week .
Looking at Steves blog your assumptions seem to be correct the judge sounds informed as well as interested . She has a tough job ahead of her to come up with a "constitutionally" correct decision .Hopefully she remains impartial while researching evidence form both sides as well as the minutes from the hearings and other non biased information from animals exerts and scientists .

babyrocky1
May 18th, 2006, 09:18 PM
She really didnt seem to be partial to the crown, Im not saying that she was partial to us, but she obviously has concerns about the bill because alot of her quesitons had to do with particular parts of the bill, so much so that it seemed as if she were considering getting rid of parts of it, which I believe is still possible, but Ruby was arguing to deter her from that route. Thats what Steve was talking about when he spoke of the 'applicant" not asking to have it separated or something of that nature. But I believe it does seem to demonstrate that she is not comfortable with the constitutionality...is that a word?..of a number of parts of the bill. The imprisonment part is one of them. There are definately more though. I guess also there comes a point that if theres enough wrong with the bill, then the whole thing has to go. Or that she does what Ruby seems to be asking and just deals with the bill as whole. All or nothing so to speak..anyways obviously I don't know what the heck Im talking about in any real sense, but thats my impresssion for what ever its worth.

lezzpezz
May 19th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Just wanted to say "THANK YOU!!" for the most excellent coverage of the court case! You take great notes! It's hard to listen and write/type it all down, at least for me! I would be interupting asking the crown to "please repeat that...I didn't get it all...slow down!" hahaha

Well done and we really appreciate it!:highfive: