Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Challenge to Ontario's "Pit Bull" Legislation

Challenge to Ontario's "Pit Bull" Legislation

TORONTO, March 13 /CNW/

On March 3, 2006, the Ohio Court of Appeals released a judgment declaring that the State's "pit bull" legislation was unconstitutional. The former legislation is similar to Ontario's own
"breed-specific" legislation which is now facing an ongoing Constitutional challenge to be argued in the Superior Court of Justice May 15 and 16. The Ontario Dog Owner's Liability Act bans any new dogs that fall under the province's definition of "pit bulls", including Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers as well as dogs with a physical appearance
that is "substantially similar" to any of the banned breeds.

In striking down the law, Ohio's Court of Appeals reviewed testimony from numerous experts, some of whom are also involved in the Ontario challenge. Local Toledo County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon has given evidence supporting Ontario's position.

After reviewing the testimony of the experts and the facts put forward, the Ohio Court sought to dispel persistent myths surrounding "pit bulls" and their owners:

1. Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society.

2. Over time, however, "well-known facts" are often discarded in light of new technological, scientific, or social discoveries and the laws change in response to this new information.

3. ...As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls.


Clayton Ruby, counsel for the challenge to Ontario's law, will hold a press conference to discuss the recent Ohio decision and its impact on Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act (Bill 132).

WHERE:
Ruby & Edwardh
Barristers and Solicitors
11 Prince Arthur Ave.
Toronto, ON M5R 1B2

WHEN:
Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

3 Comments:

Blogger Thanda Cool Team said...

"You can tell much about a culture by observing the way it treats it's animals." - Ghandi


Please spell "Ghandi" as "Gandhi."
The 'h' is misplaced. I am not trying to irritate or insult.

I am an Indian and wish to see my Country's Great leader's name spelled correctly.

8:21 AM  
Blogger Conners said...

I read your previous post which confused me as this post had nothing to do with Gandhi. No I understand.
I was going to post this too, but instead decided to add it to my web site instead.
So Bryant is calling in his flunky from Ohio. That's pretty funny because he couldn't get the BSL over turned in his own home state. LOL

12:50 AM  
Blogger Amstaffie said...

Uh, helloooooo people... it's time to realize legislation against certain breeds isn't going to work!!!!!!!!

I hope Clayton Ruby kicks butt!

5:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home