k9mania
10-25-2008, 05:21 AM
Ont.'s highest court says pit bulls are 'unpredictable' dogs, upholds ban
8 hours ago
TORONTO — Pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable dogs that have the potential to attack without warning, the Ontario Court of Appeal said Friday in a decision upholding the province's ban on the animals.
The Ontario government enacted the Dog Owners' Liability Act in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people.
The Appeal Court ruled Friday that the ban on the breed does not violate any constitutional rights, as lawyers had argued.
The law survived a constitutional challenge in March 2007, though some changes were ordered. Superior Court Justice Thea Herman said a ban on "pit bull terriers" was unconstitutionally vague because it didn't refer to a specific type or breed of dog.
But the Appeal Court disagreed, restoring the law to the form in which it was enacted.
"The total ban on pit bulls is not 'arbitrary' or 'grossly disproportionate' in light of the evidence that pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation," the judges said in their decision Friday.
"This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls."
Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who challenged the law, called it a "sad day" in Ontario.
See rest of article:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g0yYghPIE2iHKLNyiELDVFXxmXmA
8 hours ago
TORONTO — Pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable dogs that have the potential to attack without warning, the Ontario Court of Appeal said Friday in a decision upholding the province's ban on the animals.
The Ontario government enacted the Dog Owners' Liability Act in 2005 to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls after several incidents in which the dogs attacked people.
The Appeal Court ruled Friday that the ban on the breed does not violate any constitutional rights, as lawyers had argued.
The law survived a constitutional challenge in March 2007, though some changes were ordered. Superior Court Justice Thea Herman said a ban on "pit bull terriers" was unconstitutionally vague because it didn't refer to a specific type or breed of dog.
But the Appeal Court disagreed, restoring the law to the form in which it was enacted.
"The total ban on pit bulls is not 'arbitrary' or 'grossly disproportionate' in light of the evidence that pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation," the judges said in their decision Friday.
"This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls."
Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who challenged the law, called it a "sad day" in Ontario.
See rest of article:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g0yYghPIE2iHKLNyiELDVFXxmXmA