Ruby calls 'too vague'

In the CTV news

Ruby calls Ont. pit bull law 'too vague'
Updated Mon. May. 15 2006 6:31 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Ontario's pit bull legislation faced its first major constitutional challenge with famed criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby arguing Monday that the law is too vague and overly broad.

Ruby is representing Catherine Cochrane, the owner of a two-year-old pit-bull mix named Chess she is forced to muzzle and leash in public.

He is questioning whether it's possible to ban an entire breed, says CTV Toronto's Alicia Kay-Markson, who is following the story.

Outside the courthouse today, he also argued it is too difficult to positively identify the pit bull breed.

Ruby alleges the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association has asked its members not to sign any certificates under this act because it's too difficult to tell the breed of a dog by just looking at it.

"And if that's so, then this is vague legislation because as an owner how am I to tell whether the dog I got from the pound or from my friend...is a pitbull," Ruby told reporters.

"If the vets can't tell, who can tell. That's vague legislation. The constitution requires more than that."

Criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby speaks to reporters outside the court on Monday.

Under the legislation, a pit bull is defined as a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American Staffordshire terrier, an American pit bull terrier or any dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are "substantially similar'' to those dogs.

Ruby says banning a breed is not enough to protect people against vicious dogs. He says existing laws have to be enforced against owners.

"If you want to safeguard people from dangerous dogs, all the evidence suggests you've got to focus on dangerous dog owners," Ruby said. "You've got to actually spend a dollar or two and monitor those people who have dogs that are vicious."

Existing laws already have penalties for owners whose dog is a menace to people or pets, he added.
Ontario's Attorney General Michael Bryant is confident that the province's pit bull ban will survive a constitutional challenge, and says it was carefully crafted.

In court documents, Crown lawyers argue the ban is necessary for the public's protection from possible attacks.
They say pit bull attacks are more damaging than attacks from other dogs and that pit bulls often attack without being provoked.

Cochrane is the first person to challenge the law, which took effect last summer. It requires pit bulls to be muzzled in public, leashed and sterilized. It also bans breeding of the animals.

Owners who violate the law can be fined up to $10,000 and/or be sentenced to six months in jail.

With files from The Canadian Press