Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Ont. pitbull ban upheld by court

LL1
March 23rd, 2007, 05:38 PM
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6ffa1c69-61f4-46fb-8e1b-0e224f1f66be&k=4982


Ont. pitbull ban upheld by court CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, March 23, 2007

Font: * * * * TORONTO — The Ontario Superior court has upheld Ontario’s controversial pit bull ban legislation.

“We consider this to be a good day for public safety in Ontario,” Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant told reporters Friday.

“This is the first legislation of its kind, I would anticipate that it would now be copied in a number of jurisdictions across North America.”

The Dog Owner’s Liability Act bans Ontarians from acquiring pitbulls and says owners must neuter existing animals and ensure they’re leashed and muzzled in public.

Violators face a maximum penalty of $10,000 and six months in jail.

Ontario’s Liberal government introduced the ban following a series of horrific attacks that left people badly maimed.

The court did find fault with two provisions of the legislation.

In the first instance, it didn’t accept that pitbull terriers (as opposed to purebred pitbulls) be subject to the ban.

In the second, it said it wasn’t acceptable for bylaw enforcement officers going after violators to go to court armed only with a veterinarian’s signed document stating the animal involved is a pit bull. In the future, such expert testimony will have to be presented in person.

Caroline Wawzonek, a lawyer representing Toronto pitbull owner Catherine Cochrane, said the court decision will be appealed.

Cochrane’s constitutional challenge of the act was backed by the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, which represents a number of dog breeding and animal interest groups.

Prominent Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby, who led Cochrane’s legal team, argued in his presentation to the court last spring that the definition of pitbull in the provincial law is too vague.

© CanWest News Service 2007

Prin
March 23rd, 2007, 05:47 PM
:sad: :sad:

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 06:14 PM
I cant freaking believe this!!!! im in shock......!
Ill be giving him a great day come this October 7th...... I hope you guys will be joining me.

wdawson
March 23rd, 2007, 06:27 PM
i'm with you babyrocky...:sad:

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 06:36 PM
[QUOTE=LL1;

The court did find fault with two provisions of the legislation.

In the first instance, it didn’t accept that pitbull terriers (as opposed to purebred pitbulls) be subject to the ban.

In the second, it said it wasn’t acceptable for bylaw enforcement officers going after violators to go to court armed only with a veterinarian’s signed document stating the animal involved is a pit bull. In the future, such expert testimony will have to be presented in person.

[/QUOTE]What does this mean:confused: :confused: :confused: It sounds like "pit bulls" areant banned but obviously that cant be what it means... since we supposedly LOST !

Loki
March 23rd, 2007, 06:43 PM
Here's City TV's version:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_9084.aspx

Part Of Ontario's Pit Bull Law Struck Down
Friday March 23, 2007
It's the first crack in the dam of what could be a very big legal flood.
An Ontario Superior Court Justice has struck down parts of the province's controversial pitbull law.
The legislation, which bans the breeds outright in Ontario, has been bitterly opposed by advocates who claim only irresponsible owners are to blame for problems with the dogs.
The court ruled two key parts of the law, including the definition of what a pit bull is, are unconstitutional. And the jurist found using a veterinarian to prove a dog's breed also violates the law.
Despite the outcome, the Attorney General who pressed so hard to get the new legislation passed, insists 99 percent of the rules are still in place and that the vast majority of the law stands.
"This means that the law continues, which means no more pit bulls in Ontario," contends Michael Bryant. "No pit bulls sold, bred or imported into the province of Ontario.
"People should continue to leash and muzzle their pit bulls; pit bulls are banned are in Ontario, and that has been upheld by the Ontario Superior Court.
"Pit bulls remain banned, the purebred definitions of pit bulls are banned, anything substantially similar to those purebreds are banned."
But it appears the lawyers for the other side are far from satisfied by this judgment.
"We saved 'pit bull terriers' but not the other breeds," a statement from Clayton Ruby's law firm reads. "We made it impossible for the Crown to prove its case with a piece of paper signed by a veterinarian."
They vow to continue to appeal until they get the law quashed or changed.

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 07:10 PM
I guess its till too early to tell what it means unless we accept Bryants version....not to likely....... ! If the determination of a "pit bull" is unconstitiutional....well thats got to mean something....!

wdawson
March 23rd, 2007, 07:11 PM
babyrocky1


they had bryant and ruby on cfrb just before 7 today....what spin mysters they both are.
bryant: the law is upheld and nothing will change,any dog that looks like a pit is still banned....:confused:

ruby:well the certificate is unconstitutional...so this will be expensive to enforce as the so called expert will have to testify live.

but the really sad thing is, when they opened the phone lines....out of all the callers they fast tracked only 2 people that are against the law and the majority where for the ban....but then again cfrb is liberal party minded :mad:

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 07:14 PM
They screen the callers first so those things mean nothing anyways.... I guess it will come down to enforcement, and it still sucks... Bryants gotta go politically...! I just hope people in his riding arent into the ban, he has done a good job of spinning it, well not a good job, but he certainly keeps at it!

seeker
March 23rd, 2007, 07:22 PM
If we appeal this and there is a change in government in the meantime would it be challenged or deemed a waste of taxpayers money in fighting it ?
Babyrocky : The lawyers are still looking it over ,not much that a judge decides on is a cut and dry as it may at first appear. If the defintion of a pitbull is unconstutional I would think that leaves a lot of space for a judge in a lower court to toss a case out if an owner challenged that his dog is not a clearly identifiable breed.From what I read the crown cannot use a vet's documents to id the dog he/she must appear in person ,so now it will cost the Crown more money to prove what it is .
Lots of questions need to be answered, although I must admit I am a little disappointed right now.
As for this government just hope the public sees through Sorbara's manipulation of #s that now shows a money surplass.The fact is there never was a huge deficet like they reported early in their term in office .That was created so they could show good numbers just before an election.This budget is defined as a Socialist budget in order to appeal to the NDP vote . Keep your eyes open people, they have done nothing but lie and the only thing that looks good for them{no deficet} is also a lie.People have to see this .

seeker
March 23rd, 2007, 07:28 PM
babyrocky1


they had bryant and ruby on cfrb just before 7 today....what spin mysters they both are.
bryant: the law is upheld and nothing will change,any dog that looks like a pit is still banned....:confused:

ruby:well the certificate is unconstitutional...so this will be expensive to enforce as the so called expert will have to testify live.

but the really sad thing is, when they opened the phone lines....out of all the callers they fast tracked only 2 people that are against the law and the majority where for the ban....but then again cfrb is liberal party minded :mad:

Don't put too much weight on CFRB's callers they ask a lot of questions before you get to on the air .One time I was on hold right until they changed the topic ,I think because I disagreed with the host as lots of callers that agreed got to speak.

seeker
March 23rd, 2007, 07:31 PM
They screen the callers first so those things mean nothing anyways.... I guess it will come down to enforcement, and it still sucks... Bryants gotta go politically...! I just hope people in his riding arent into the ban, he has done a good job of spinning it, well not a good job, but he certainly keeps at it!

Babyrocky .He has to hold onto this because in almost 4 years in office he has done nothing else .He must look at this as his "legacy" Bozo :clown: Bryant truly is a clown,nothing more.

wdawson
March 23rd, 2007, 07:51 PM
seeker
i don't any weight on any media..or the provincial government.....guess we need to wait and read the print version of this ruling.

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 08:25 PM
If we appeal this this .We are appealing this.... !

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 08:36 PM
I had a long post, now i dont know what happened to it... I probably forgot to hit submit....
Anyhow, yes I agree that we wont know the whole story til we get a full report from the lawyer and maybe even til it is tested in lower court but still, this is not what we wanted.... I never thought we would get everything but I definately thought we would do better than this... and The little Devil Gnome, got just what he wanted today, running around blathering about his victory and the average person, hearing it all r einforced AGAIN..... ! Thats the part that really hurts, right now its reading like our dogs ARE evil and the part that went For us is in the legal enforcement of it.... I know thats the spin, but I wanted it SPUN the other way... I desperately wanted it SPUN the other way, this was supposed to expose the scum bag but in most of the media it legitamizes him... Im not saying I want to give up but this is a loss and I feel like Sh....t !!!! My guy is eight years old in April. Hes had surgery because of his muzzle, our lives have been completely thrown into chaos. Theres story after story of the dogs who havent been as lucky as ours, who have had owners not willing to fight for them, and I dont need to remind any of you of those. The only good thing thats come of this is meeting all of you and coming together to fight, but hell when do we get to celebrate... Sorry guys but Im at work and I just need to rant.:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

seeker
March 23rd, 2007, 08:40 PM
I thought I read that somewhere . But I am not happy about having to do this and I also wonder about the likelyhood of another judge seeing it differently.
I suppose the best we should hope for is for another judge to open even more loopholes in the bill or for it to spill into election time and be dropped by the crown after the hoped for change of govenment.

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 08:46 PM
As far as I know its always been the plan to appeal, either side that is... but I wonder if we go to the Supreme Court of Canada now or if its still in Ontario....

seeker
March 23rd, 2007, 08:50 PM
I had a long post, now i dont know what happened to it... I probably forgot to hit submit....
Anyhow, yes I agree that we wont know the whole story til we get a full report from the lawyer and maybe even til it is tested in lower court but still, this is not what we wanted.... I never thought we would get everything but I definately thought we would do better than this... and The little Devil Gnome, got just what he wanted today, running around blathering about his victory and the average person, hearing it all r einforced AGAIN..... ! Thats the part that really hurts, right now its reading like our dogs ARE evil and the part that went For us is in the legal enforcement of it.... I know thats the spin, but I wanted it SPUN the other way... I desperately wanted it SPUN the other way, this was supposed to expose the scum bag but in most of the media it legitamizes him... Im not saying I want to give up but this is a loss and I feel like Sh....t !!!! My guy is eight years old in April. Hes had surgery because of his muzzle, our lives have been completely thrown into chaos. Theres story after story of the dogs who havent been as lucky as ours, who have had owners not willing to fight for them, and I dont need to remind any of you of those. The only good thing thats come of this is meeting all of you and coming together to fight, but hell when do we get to celebrate... Sorry guys but Im at work and I just need to rant.:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:


Take a deep breath and lets wait to hear something official from Ruby before we get too upset.

babyrocky1
March 23rd, 2007, 08:54 PM
Take a deep breath and lets wait to hear something official from Ruby before we get too upset. Before we get too upset....hahaha too late...Im out of my mind, I need a drink at least....LOL

LavenderRott
March 23rd, 2007, 08:56 PM
“This is the first legislation of its kind, I would anticipate that it would now be copied in a number of jurisdictions across North America.”


Mr. Bryant needs to stay in Canada. In every U.S. court that BSL has gone through, the laws have been deemed unconstitutional. Even in Denver, at one point.

Many U.S. cities are turning away from BSL and enacting more reasonable dangerous dog laws.

seeker
March 23rd, 2007, 09:04 PM
Mr. Bryant needs to stay in Canada. In every U.S. court that BSL has gone through, the laws have been deemed unconstitutional. Even in Denver, at one point.

Many U.S. cities are turning away from BSL and enacting more reasonable dangerous dog laws.

At least common sense is prevailing south of the boarder.
I mistakedly thought some of those decisions might influence our judge up here .

mummummum
March 23rd, 2007, 10:41 PM
I guess the only thing we can pin our hopes on until we win the appeal, is that they seemingly muddied the waters enough in the definition of a pure pit bull that enough Vet's won't sign the cert and show up at court.

Still, it's such utter mindlessness and irrationality.

mafiaprincess
March 23rd, 2007, 11:16 PM
Mom was watching CTV and she saw that the part that was struck down is good for many people... If you have a mixed breed it would no longer be affected by the law.. It would have to be certified a pure bred pittie....

Not perfect, but that would be a giant chink in the law..

twodogsandacat
March 24th, 2007, 09:42 AM
Having these two pieces struck down weakens the law and increases the chances of the defendant winning in court. We have already seen cases won and with these two changes may see more.

Secondly by launching an appeal now we may see the court case come up around election time and a new government is just as likely to amend the law as they would be to defend it. This is based on the comments and actions of the oppostion parties regarding Bill 132.

Hang in there it's not over yet...

seeker
March 24th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Having these two pieces struck down weakens the law and increases the chances of the defendant winning in court. We have already seen cases won and with these two changes may see more.

Secondly by launching an appeal now we may see the court case come up around election time and a new government is just as likely to amend the law as they would be to defend it. This is based on the comments and actions of the oppostion parties regarding Bill 132.

Hang in there it's not over yet...

Welcome back !

babyrocky1
March 24th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Having these two pieces struck down weakens the law and increases the chances of the defendant winning in court. We have already seen cases won and with these two changes may see more.

Secondly by launching an appeal now we may see the court case come up around election time and a new government is just as likely to amend the law as they would be to defend it. This is based on the comments and actions of the oppostion parties regarding Bill 132.

Hang in there it's not over yet...Yep, but we needed some time to get over the emotional shock of it... Im back and ready for round two..... short post now.... on my way to a fundraiser for the legal defence..... See ya all soon! Ill second that Seeker, Welcome back 2dogs!!!!

Schwinn
March 26th, 2007, 09:43 AM
This feels like a VERY hollow victory for us :sad:

Daisy's no longer banned since she's a mixed breed, but it still upsets me that the ban wasn't outright struck down.

That being said, I'd really like to see the actual decision. Did the court actually review the whole ban, or were they focusing on one aspect? My understanding is they were focusing on the definition of pitbull, not the legitimacy of the ban itself. In other words, they are not judging whether pitbulls should be banned, but whether the definition of pitbull is too loose. Are they saying that, "Yes, it is okay to ban pitbulls" or are they saying, "No, you can't have such a broad defition of a banned breed".

It's a very fine line, but one that courts often draw. My gut reaction is that the court wasn't actually passing judgement on the validity of the banning a breed, but rather, how that breed is defined. There have been court cases where I've seen the judgement say, "We don't agree with this aspect, but that is not what we were asked to rule on."

Also, what is a purebred "pitbull"? There is no breed. And most "pitbulls" are some sort of mix, and the court has ruled that mix breeds can not fall under this legislation. So despite Mighty Mouth's insistance that "any breed that is substantially similar to a pitbull is still banned", it isn't. The fact of the matter is that the number of owners who must comply with the law has just been reduced to a fraction of before. Unfortunately, a fraction isn't zero, though.

Anyway, until I see the actual decision, or an unbiased interpretation, I'm reserving most of my anger. I don't think the ban was upheld, as much as part of the definition was struck down.

pitbulliest
March 26th, 2007, 01:42 PM
What if your dog is registered as a pit bull because you didn't really have any other choice when the law came in anyways? My Messina is registered as an american pit bull terrier, but I don't even have proof of that..she was rescued on the side of the road basically..what if I want to change her breed now and defend that its some kind of a mutt?

Nobody knows her real pedigree..can I get around this? I hate muzzling her.

This law better be overturned. I hope to own pits in the future, and I would hate to have to move out of the province because these dogs are treated like prisoners.

Down with Bill 132...I hope the appeal gets us some very positive results. Any idea on how long this whole process may take before we hear the next decision?!

Watchdog
March 26th, 2007, 02:58 PM
John Tory had said in the past that he would scrap the pitbull ban if elected. Vote Conservative this fall and lets hold his feet to fire to get this ban set on fire.

Schwinn
March 27th, 2007, 11:11 AM
Here's a thought...

Under the court ruling, the two attacks that Bryant used to spout of as an example of how great his law is, they would not have been prevented. The Ottawa "attack" (the one where a 70lb kid fought off two 120lb killers) were crossed with Mastiffs, and the poor kid in Goderich (I think that's where it was) was attacked by an obvious mixed breed (later determined to have no pit in it whatsoever).

Under the court ruling, neither of these dogs would have been required to be muzzled since they were obvious to not have been purebreds.

Just found that interesting...

babyrocky1
March 27th, 2007, 07:26 PM
What if your dog is registered as a pit bull because you didn't really have any other choice when the law came in anyways? My Messina is registered as an american pit bull terrier, but I don't even have proof of that..she was rescued on the side of the road basically..what if I want to change her breed now and defend that its some kind of a mutt?

Nobody knows her real pedigree..can I get around this? I hate muzzling her.

This law better be overturned. I hope to own pits in the future, and I would hate to have to move out of the province because these dogs are treated like prisoners.

Down with Bill 132...I hope the appeal gets us some very positive results. Any idea on how long this whole process may take before we hear the next decision?!

apparantly THIS process isnt even over with yet... Now Im paraphrasing, but it sounds as if the two sides still have to argue on how the ruling will be acted upon... the appeals come later and I have know idea when they will argue that part... AGAIN this is only from some of my reading today.... If you go the the THS site they give an explanation of there own understanding of what has happened but some are saying its just that, an interpretation so I remained confused as ever.

Right now though, there is no confusion, we must still behave as we have since the start of the ban, there is some sort of process that still needs to be established. The safest thing is to obey the law as we were before:sad:

Rocky is registered as an American Bull DogX but since I dont know what substantially similar means I have obided by the "pit bull" law....... Also, TAC registered "pit bulls" according to what they thought they looked like sooooo will that still hold if the definition of "pit bull" is changed... looks substantially similar remains in the bill but substantially similar to what is my question, one of them anyways.. Soooo we still know nothing, just more questions. Personally, I think alot will depend on how the lower courts interpret the ruling. If they find they can work with it.

babyrocky1
March 27th, 2007, 07:42 PM
Someone has posted their short notes on the radio broadcast, I cant get the link to work but apparantly the two sides will be back in crt. in the next few weeks. Did anyone else hear the broadcast?

seeker
March 27th, 2007, 10:22 PM
It was just over 4 minutes and Ruby did say he would try to get back in front of the judge within a few weeks.He said alot of dog owners in Ont are concerned and basically want to know the results of the ruling and what it means to them.He said Bryant will try to get the judge to change a few lines in the bill but Ruby wants the whole thing to go back before the legislature and if he doesn't get what he wants there will be an appeal.

Schwinn
March 28th, 2007, 10:49 AM
My own interpretation is that it has to be a purebred pitbull to fall under the law. So if you have it registered as a pitty cross, you are no longer under the law. And "substantially similar" also won't cut it, because that does not make it a purebred. You can put a roll cage and a "fart can" muffler on a Honda to make it sound and look substantially similar to a high-perfermance race car, but it still isn't a race car. The only question now is who is the onus on to prove the breed. The only way to prove the breed is a purebred would be papers, I would think. That being said, all it would take is one "pitbull breeds don't have..." to make your case.

pitbulliest
March 28th, 2007, 12:29 PM
Well I do hope you are right Seeker, and that this whole thing gets put back into court soon...I'm really wishing and hoping they demolish the law before the end of this year..wishful thinking? :(

Schwinn
March 28th, 2007, 12:51 PM
I found a copy of the judgement (reading it now) and found this

"...it is not my task to determine whether the legislation made the correct policy choice in restricting the ownership of pitbulls. Rather, the issue is whether the provisions in question on constitutionally valid."

It goes on to say the the claim is "...the pit bull provisions are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague" and allowing a document from a veternarian "...results in trial unfairness and offends...the Charter...".

In other words, the only question the judge ruled on was, is the burden of proof fair, and is the description of pitbull too vague. In both cases, the government lost. Despite what the media and Mighty Mouth says, this is, in fact, a victory for us.

Schwinn
March 28th, 2007, 01:14 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts, but...

This last line on the last page says it all...

"This decision is not a judgment as to the wisdom of the legislature in choosing to restrict the ownership of pit bulls. Rather, it is solely concerned with the constitutional validity of the legislative provisions."

In other words, it isn't passing judgement on how stupid the law is, but rather if it violates the constition. In the judgement, based on that, it states that the legislature can, in fact, restrict breeds. But again, this isn't saying that the court is supporting the legislature based on the content of the bill, but rather, on the execution. When you read through the decision, it questions several times whether there is a need to ban pitbulls.

Saradog
March 28th, 2007, 07:14 PM
It's not over yet. The lawyers have to go before the judge to argue how they believe her decision should be implemented, after which she'll make an order.

Wait for the judicial order. It may take a couple of weeks for the lawyers to get a date to appear before her.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so to speak.

babyrocky1
March 28th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts, but...

This last line on the last page says it all...

"This decision is not a judgment as to the wisdom of the legislature in choosing to restrict the ownership of pit bulls. Rather, it is solely concerned with the constitutional validity of the legislative provisions."

In other words, it isn't passing judgement on how stupid the law is, but rather if it violates the constition. In the judgement, based on that, it states that the legislature can, in fact, restrict breeds. But again, this isn't saying that the court is supporting the legislature based on the content of the bill, but rather, on the execution. When you read through the decision, it questions several times whether there is a need to ban pitbulls.Exactly, and thats what I was always afraid of cause in court everytime the crowns points would be successfully argued they would fall back on the defense that they werent required to make "smart laws" my words... but you get the point... Im glad thats the last line... it really makes an impact with its placing... i hadnt gotten near that far yet! congrats, thats a tough read! I wanted to get mine printed first, it gives me a head ache!

babyrocky1
March 28th, 2007, 08:43 PM
It's not over yet. The lawyers have to go before the judge to argue how they believe her decision should be implemented, after which she'll make an order.

Wait for the judicial order. It may take a couple of weeks for the lawyers to get a date to appear before her.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so to speak.Do you know if it will be in open court?

tybrax
March 29th, 2007, 01:38 AM
Wed, March 28, 2007

Province insists pit bull ban has teeth
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO




Attorney General Michael Bryant says lawyer Clayton Ruby's claim that a pit bull ban is all bark and no bite is "nonsense."

Ruby said Ontario Superior Court Justice Thea Herman's finding that the pit bull definition was unconstitutionally vague renders the ban toothless. "No one is going to use the act because we know now major chunks of it are unconstitutional," Ruby said.

Bryant said yesterday Herman struck down a "redundant" phrase in the act but the law remains valid and enforceable. "What people need to look at is not the person who's representing the pit bull owners but read the judgment,."

While Herman found the entire definition of pit bull was too vague, Bryant said owners must still muzzle and leash their pets.


"No one is going to use tha act because we know now major chunks of it are
uncontitutional," Ruby said.

How right you are Mr Ruby, l have just been through the same thing here with my girl tyra. After six months of refusing the council because of there bullying tactics and threats, l told them i would see them in court.


Please read tyra story.

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Victims_of_BSL/index.php?showtopic=94

She has graduated from an American pit bull or type. I totally refused to let the ACO officers do there 4 assessment on tyra, its was stated in court that
there is no one in Ausrtralia that can identify a pit bull by the Magistrate.

Debra Pomeroy on her own admission told the Court she is a self proclaimed expert that taught herself of the internet, and went on to teach all ACO in breed id.

They have no accreditation at all.

tybrax

Lil Mama
May 7th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Hi, I am new to this site, and I noticed there was no link for the documentation from the court hearing on March 23, 2007.



http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/pdfs/canine/pitbull_ruling.pdf

:ca:
I am very excited about how the law has been changed, unfortunately it still needs to be clarified. I have a small puppy who is a lab X terrier mix, and the city by law officer just left my house 30 mins ago. He had complaints that my pup was a pitbull, she is not. But now I must prove by Friday that she isn't.. I already had her first shots, and the vet confirmed that she was a lab mix. But I need to go back and get another paper.. Sheesh..

Ok well if anyone has any info on what they would do if I cant get the vet to sign a paper stating that, I would appreciate it. What is the process? would they just take her? Can I make them go to court and prove it? I'm kinda lost this whole law has been nothing but heck for us. Even finding a place to live is difficult.. the word Pitbull has become "discriminated"

Thanks.

seeker
May 7th, 2007, 09:27 PM
I don't have an answer but someone in the bannedaid coalition should be able to give you some advice. www.bannedaid.com There are links on the "about us" page.

Lil Mama
May 8th, 2007, 01:52 AM
:fingerscr

Thanks a lot for the reply, I checked out the dumdalton link.. I'm going to also put it on my blog for people to see..

seeker
May 8th, 2007, 06:09 PM
:fingerscr

Thanks a lot for the reply, I checked out the dumdalton link.. I'm going to also put it on my blog for people to see..

:thumbs up

babyrocky1
May 11th, 2007, 12:05 AM
Hi, I am new to this site, and I noticed there was no link for the documentation from the court hearing on March 23, 2007.



http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/pdfs/canine/pitbull_ruling.pdf

:ca:
I am very excited about how the law has been changed, unfortunately it still needs to be clarified. I have a small puppy who is a lab X terrier mix, and the city by law officer just left my house 30 mins ago. He had complaints that my pup was a pitbull, she is not. But now I must prove by Friday that she isn't.. I already had her first shots, and the vet confirmed that she was a lab mix. But I need to go back and get another paper.. Sheesh..

Ok well if anyone has any info on what they would do if I cant get the vet to sign a paper stating that, I would appreciate it. What is the process? would they just take her? Can I make them go to court and prove it? I'm kinda lost this whole law has been nothing but heck for us. Even finding a place to live is difficult.. the word Pitbull has become "discriminated"

Thanks.
I thought the link was here somewhere but the lawyers go back to court June 14th to figure out how the bill will be interpreted so I dont know how much help reading the decision would be at this point since even the lawyers for both sides dont know, but paraphrasing , and MY understanding is that the purebreds mentioned in the bill are unfortunately constitutional BUT pit bull mix IS NOT... Substantially similar is still there, but "pit bull terrier" is NOT.... You need legal advice, but since you only have til tomorrow hopefully you have vet papers and you dont need to go that route! :fingerscr Good Luck!