Skip to content
 

All Dog Owners Beware

All dog owners beware.  When the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Dog Owner’s Liability Act, it also brought back the portions of the law that had been struck in the lower court ruling.  Why does this matter to all dog owners?  The substantially similar clause has been reinstated.

 

If you have an unregistered or mixed breed dog with short hair consider moving.  At the turn of an Animal Control Officer’s head, your dog could be misidentified as a “pitbull”.  The onus is then on you to prove that it isn’t.  How do you prove that it isn’t if it isn’t registered as something else?  You can’t. While you argue your case your dog will be impounded as though it were no more significant than an inanimate object.  If you lose, your dog will be killed.  One dog in Mississauga was in a 4’ by 3’ kennel for over nine months, more than half of his life, while his fate was decided.  He was allowed fifteen minutes of socialization per day for nine months.  This is one case, but there are many.  In many cases, the dogs do not resemble at all any of the three rare, purebred dogs that are banned, not to an educated eye.  The fourth banned breed is non existent.

 

If you own a Boxer, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Vizsla, Pointer, Bullmastiff, Rottweiler, Doberman, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Catahoula, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, American Bulldog, Olde English Bulldog, Bull Terrier, Great Dane or a Lab mix be especially worried.  Add to that Australian Cattle Dog mixes, Jack Russell mixes.  Any dog with short hair and an athletic appearance could be misidentified.  Any dog with a head that isn’t as narrow and pointed as a Collie could be targeted.  Ironically I watched my husband get attacked by a Collie on the face and throat.  He was extremely lucky to live, and needed an ambulance and a lot of stitches.  If I were uneducated about dogs, I might jump to the conclusion based on my anecdotal evidence that all Collies are unpredictable and dangerous, but I know better.  Incidentally it also didn’t make any news stories since it was a Collie, even though it was quite a serious attack.

 

If you think that your dog doesn’t look anything like any of the three banned purebred dogs, think again:  Animal Control Officers have proven time and time again that their breed identification skills are weak at best.  Add to this that you should be worried anyway, since when three breeds and anything that looks like it might be mixed with one are banned, it’s just as easy to add a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, and so on.

 

The truth is, this isn’t even about dogs.  It’s about rights.  I agree with those who say that they have the right to be safe from dog attacks, but safe from any dog attack, not certain breeds.  Breed bans actually do a disservice to victims of bites by other breeds.   Yes we need responsible dog ownership laws, fines, even jail time if warranted.  Not breed bans.  Good people, family people are being punished.  Good dogs, family dogs, are being persecuted and killed, while idiot owners go out and get other breeds and are still idiot owners, and it’s somewhat important to note that even if that doesn’t bother you, giving up rights should.  Allowing warrantless search and seizure should. 

 

Discrimination based on appearance is wrong, plain and simple.  There are so many myths about these breeds, but physiologically they are just dogs.  So put aside your preconceived notions and stand up for rights in your province, and tell your government you want them to stop killing puppies.

8 Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    [quote]The substantially similar clause has been reinstated.[/quote]
    Small correction if you don`t mind.
    The substantially similar clause was not severed in the first ruling.It has been there all along.
    The Definition of Pit Bull was reinstated as previously written which included pit bull terrier

  2. Anonymous says:

    Also Sec 19 was reinstated which just brings the whole law back to the way it was originally written.
    If people didn`t care about substantially similar before,I doubt that they will care any more now.
    There is a letter in the Ottawa Citizen today demanding that Ottawa enforce the ban and threatening the City with legal action.
    Hopefully a lot of people with the Breeds and the mixes you`ve mentioned will get charged.That may wake them up as to what this law means.
    Bring on the charges and the Court cases Ottawa.
    I think you may need more dog jails and human jails.
    Don`t pay those $10,000 fines people.Opt for jail.
    You may get to chat with some Politicians while you`re there.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Since enforcement of the law is optional, Ottawa is well within its rights to ignore the amendments to DOLA, so mob rule won't work this time. If we caved to the ignoramuses among us every time, we'd descend into either outright anarchy or some variation of 'frontier justice'.
    I would go much farther than the title of this post suggests. Certainly, this decision in saying that the evidence doesn't support the ban but that doesn't matter, that the government doesn't need justification for the seizure of property, that a slang term can be used to legally define something vague and nonexistent, that the government has the right to rename purebred animals and create new breeds and more, not only allows but seems to suggest that all dogs should be banned.
    When read and interpreted correctly, this decision means that all property owners in Ontario (and through precedent, in Canada) can have the same provisions applied to them without justification or clarity.
    The dogs in the law were just a tool – and it worked. The howling mob bought into the red herring which allowed the government to erode their civil rights in broad daylight.
    I agree, clog the courts and waste even more public money until they realize that this law is not only useless but an insult to Canadian values.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Champion of the underdog
    Yeah right
    http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=795
    Business should be picking up soon

  5. Anonymous says:

    This lawyer should get one of the Banned Pure Breeds as a Service Dog.
    Any available?
    Wouldn`t that be quite the Court case?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Mac, you're back! Yay!
    btw, I really didn't need to see that article today – champion of the underdog, indeed.

  7. Anonymous says:

    New Articles for Lawyers Weekly:
    Michael J Bryant: A Citizens' Best Friend

  8. Anonymous says:

    I wish the people with those other breeds and mixes would open their eyes and get it. They absolutely need to get involved in the fight against this breed ban.

Leave a Reply