Owner Fights Pit Bull Ban
A court in Canada is considering an appeal made by a dog owner that the ban on Pit Bulls is unfair and unconstitutional.
Pit bull regulations are too broad given that most of the dogs “make wonderful pets — are kind, gentle animals who harm no one ever,” lawyer Clayton Ruby said yesterday.
Dog owners are the problem, not the dogs, he said during a break at an Ontario Court of Appeal hearing on whether a law aimed at reducing the number of pit pull attacks should be struck down.
“It’s people who create dangerous dogs,” Ruby said on behalf of dog owner Catherine Cochrane, who is fighting regulations that went into effect three years ago.
“They want dangerous dogs,” Ruby said of some pit bull owners. “We should be attacking those people and stopping that process.”
The Ontario law bans new pit bulls from the province and orders existing ones to be sterilized, as well as leashed and muzzled in public.
Ruby, acting for Cochrane, earlier challenged the law as unconstitutional and won changes from a lower court judge. Yesterday, Ruby was further arguing before the appeal tribunal led by Justice John Laskin that the law should be struck down entirely.
For the Crown, Mike Doi listed numerous unprovoked pit bull attacks, including the 1994 Danforth Ave. mauling of 5-year-old Lauren Harper, who needed 300 stitches to her face.
“Pit bulls can attack unprovoked even when they are previously known to be friendly,” Doi said, supporting the lower court’s finding that the law should stand.
A key question on appeal is whether the law defines “pit bull” too broadly. The law specifically names Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers, then includes any other dog with traits “substantially similar” to those breeds.
The wording is unconstitutionally broad, Ruby said.
“The evidence was that there are 24 pure-bred dogs that look like these dogs — and those are just pure-breds, (not to mention) all the half-breeds and mutts,” he said during the break.
“Your dog at home will look like a pit bull in many respects.”
Crown lawyer Robert Charney argued the law responded constitutionally to “a real, serious problem of public safety.”
The hearing continues today.
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
Loading ...