Law Not "Arbitrary"
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...