City of Toronto granted an appeal in Ginger case

Have you ever had that feeling that you feel as though your head may explode?

I sometimes wonder if, (unbeknownst to me) I was plucked off the earth and placed on some idiotic planet where the opposite of common sense is the “norm”.

The city of Toronto was granted an appeal in the Ginger case.

To refresh your memory, Ginger was in a Toronto animal services kennel for three and a half
years, accused of aggression after defending herself against an
unprovoked attack by an off-leash dog.  She was freed a week ago after
a judge determined that she had been held illegally for over three
years!  Today, we find out if the city of Toronto will be allowed to
appeal that decision. To read more…

Chicobandido has an additional post with the link to the National Post.

Earlier this week, a friend sent me the link to another story developing in Toronto.

For the second time this month, a dog has attacked another owner's pet,
leaving the animal in serious condition. This latest incident involved a
two-year German Shepherd named Rocky, who allegedly jumped over the fence in his
yard on Enfield Ave. in the Lakeshore and Browns Line area around 2pm
Monday and attacked another dog as its owner took it out for a walk.

Vets have told the family it will cost at least $4,500 to save their beloved
Boomer (top left), a Polish lowland sheepdog.

The wounded canine is on oxygen and is in stable condition. But he needs
surgery to have his trachea repaired and that's a major expense.

At the very least his owner wants an apology. “She knows I'm home all day. I
would have most sincerely gone over there to apologize and say 'what else can I
do?'” complains Yvette Drummond. “I think it's just not right.”

She claims police told her it “wasn't their problem.”

Rocky's owner says she intends to issue that apology and feels terrible about
what happened. But she insists her pet is usually very well behaved and there's
no reason why the dog may have gone on the offensive.

All I have to say is; WTF is wrong with people?

Let's recap for a moment.

OK,
Phillip Huggins' mother was out for a walk with his dog Ginger, in
compliance with the law. (Ginger was leashed and muzzled. Remember this
was Nov 29th, 2005 so the ban had just come into effect.) Ginger is
attacked by another dog and her muzzle was ripped off. Ginger defended
herself by biting back. Phillip was charged and Ginger was seized,
where she remained in custody until just this week. She has been in
custody of the Toronto pound since Nov 29th 2005! Almost 4 years! Clay
Ruby
got involved in the case 2 weeks ago. In a comment from Ruby;

“Clearly she (Ginger) bit. The question was whether she was defending
herself against another dog or whether she was the aggressor,” said
Ruby.

So the question is not whether Ginger bit back but Toronto Animal Services are claiming they had no choice under judgement to order Ginger seized and destroyed.

Two months ago, Ontario Court Justice Mary Hogan set the destruction
order aside, stating her “concern … that such a dog would be ordered
destroyed in circumstances where the dog had no culpability
whatsoever.”

The judge offered the analogy of a burglar
breaking into a home where a pit bull resided and the pit bull biting
the burglar, saying it would be “absurd” to destroy that dog.

She
also found the justice of the peace erred in his judgment in several
instances, “the most significant example in his finding that the dog
Buddy was leashed and the dog Ginger was not. Clearly the evidence was
the exact opposite.”

Last month, the city filed its motion for leave to appeal Hogan's decision at the Court of Appeal.

City of Toronto lawyer Kirsten Franz claims it should be “mandatory for the court to order the
destruction once certain elements are found: that the dog is a pit bull
and that dog has attacked or bitten a person or another domestic
animal.”

BUT

If the dog is any other breed or cross bred other than a “pitbull”, there are no repercussions, nobody is charged and it isn't the police departments problem???

The ban is an amendment to the Dog Owners Liability Act. The DOLA has been in place since 1876, however you would think it was new news for those enforcing the law! DOLA DOES apply to ALL dog owners, however for some reason someone doled out the kool-aid and there seems to be some belief that charges should only be laid when the dog is a “pitbull”.

Maybe it's the same lot of kool-aid the MSM lap up. I was quite surprised to see there was a NON 'pitbull' report. Slow news day I guess?

Maybe we should have a rag just for dog bites.. oh yeah, we do! Maybe we should have a bite registry?? What an abstract idea. Oh yeah, that was mentioned LOUDLY,  but it too was ignored by the ever incompetent government running this province since 2004!

All I have to say is WTF?


4 Comments

  1. It's just bizarre isn't it? I've always said that BSL does a disservice to bite victims because the focus is on the breed, not where it should be. Ginger is certainly the victim in this case. Of course they don't want a bite registry, it would demonstrate with numerical data that BSL does not reduce bites. We know it. They know it. They just don't care and don't want the general public to know it. It's all about career building, attention grabbing nonsense.

  2. You girls have both nailed it.
    We are finally getting more of a soapbox now. We have been shouting from the rooftops for 5 years but people are finally getting it. We will keep showing people the unjust damage this bull**** law has caused. Things are going to begin to heat up and speed up now. The time has come for people to stand up for themselves. If my child, pet or myself were victims of a “non-'pitbull' attack” and nothing was done, yet I see other cases like Ginger where she was defending herself and gets a destruction order, I would cause a REVOLUTION! The thing is, there are a great deal of them. We hear about them ALL THE TIME. We get a LOT of emails from dog owners asking for help. Their dog was attacked by a bla bla bla… and they were told it sucks to be them. If it isn't identified as a 'pitbull' the authorities likely won't come and no charges are laid.
    Since this law came to power, there have been children KILLED by non-'pitbull' attacks. (When I use that term it means the dog wasn't identified as such but could have been if the enforcer chose to do so.) There wasn't an automatic destruction order put on the dog even then! The decision was always left up to the owner whether the dog should be destroyed after the animal killed the child.
    I am not suggesting to blame the dog or that there should or shouldn't have been a destruction order? That isn't the point, what the point is; a dog deemed a 'pitbull' gets a destruction order, when it was leashed and muzzled but attacked by another dog and defended itself. A dog not deemed a 'pitbull' kills a child, no charges laid and the owners debate whether to destroy the dog or not. Is there a difference??
    **Footnote, these are NOT hypothetical situations. We have the the information on record.
    Why do you think MOST attacks are classified as 'pitbulls'???
    Answer: BECAUSE it is the only way to get any recourse. If you want police or AC action, call in a 'pitbull' attack. They'll be on your doorstep pronto! Call in a labradoodle attack and they'll take your name and say they'll get back to you.. never to be heard from again…..

  3. So true. I read about a man that called in a dog attack two times and couldn't get a call back from the media. He called a 3rd time and said a “pit bull” attacked him and had 2 media call backs within a few hours. He came out later saying that it was NOT a pit attack but that is what it took to get the media interested and he wanted his story out there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>