Monday, June 15, 2009
Ottawa, CA - It was announced last week that the Canada Supreme Court refused the appeal against the Ontario pit bull ban brought by Catherine Cochrane of Toronto, which leaves the Ontario law untouched and constitutionally sound. In October of 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeal overwhelmingly upheld the law, known as the Dog Owners' Liability Act of 2005, that bans the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls in the province of Ontario.
The high court refuted that the law was vague and could be used to include half-breeds and mutts. The court stated, "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." Though Ontario is the only province in Canada to ban the breed, various Canadian cities have done so as well.
In February of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Toledo v. Tellings ruling, whereby leaving the State of Ohio's pit bull law intact. The court rejected the appeal on the following grounds: Procedural due process; Substantive due process; Equal protection and Void for vagueness. The Canada Supreme Court now joins a number of U.S. courts in ruling that breed-specific laws are indeed constitutional when properly written.
10/24/08: Ontario Court Of Appeals Upholds Province's Pit Bull Ban
03/02/08: Ontario Pit Bull Ban Greatly Reduces Bite Count
02/26/08: U.S. Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling...
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 6/15/2009 12:08 PM |
Isn't interesting that Courts of Law regulary make judicial FINDINGS OF FACT that indicate the unpredictability, tenacity, dangerousness, strength, pain tolerance and manner of bite, hold and shake. Courts of law are unbiased.
How come the AKC, UKC, ADBA, Best Friends, Cesar Milan, AFF and others don't make similar findings?
The law supports pit bull bans. Period. Lobby the hell out of your local city councils, do the research....The LAW IS CLEAR.
| 6/15/2009 7:01 PM |
I think you will be seeing many more bans and regulation of pits before it is over. I also have found that if you argue enough with these pit nutters, they show themselves for what they are, nuts. And this goes a long way to convince people that their information has to be nuts too.
| 6/15/2009 11:18 PM |
It's simple. The court has no vested monetary interest in promoting pit bulls or advocating for them as pets. All of the above mentioned organizations and people, AKC, UKC, Best Friends, Caesar Milan, etc. do. They make money promoting, rescuing, breeding, fighting, "rehabbing", and otherwise advocating for pit bulls, so of course they aren't going to let the money train leave the station if they can at all help it.
| 6/20/2009 6:32 AM |
The Mauling Fancy loses once again!
Time to get to work breeding safer dogs...I suggest getting down to Texas and culling the pups produced by the two Pits that killed Justin Clinton. Afterall, Human Aggressive Pits were always culled....