By Michael Oliveira
TORONTO (CP) - The Ontario government was claiming victory over dangerous dogs while critics of the province's pit-bull ban were left licking their wounds Friday after the controversial law survived a constitutional challenge largely intact.
Two specific, narrow elements of the law - a ban on "pit bull terriers" and a section allowing the government to rely on veterinary certificates in identifying banned dogs - were struck down in a decision by Superior Court Justice Thea Herman.
Attorney General Michael Bryant said the province got "99 per cent" of what it wanted: of the 117 provisions in the legislation, only two were affected by the ruling.
"Pit bulls remain banned, the pure-breed definitions of pitbulls are banned and anything substantially similar to those purebreds are banned," Bryant said.
Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who led the challenge, had argued the ban is unconstitutional and too broad because it bans all pit bulls, even though animal experts say the majority of the dogs are friendly family pets.
He vowed to file an appeal but said in a brief statement his side has claimed a "substantial" victory.
Herman upheld the restrictions that apply to purebred Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers, as well as non-purebred dogs with substantially similar appearance and physical characteristics.
In a written decision, she said it wasn't her job to determine if the government made the correct policy choice in banning ownership, but rather to determine whether the legislation was constitutionally valid.
"The evidence with respect to the dangerousness of pit bulls, although conflicting and inconclusive, is sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute a 'reasoned apprehension of harm,"' Herman wrote.
"Dog ownership is not a right. The impact of these restrictions on individual dog owners is not, in my opinion, disproportionate to the objective of protecting the public."
But she did change the law in two substantial ways: she decided the ban on "pit bull terriers" is unconstitutionally vague because it doesn't refer to a specific type or breed of dog, and also ruled against letting the province rely on vets to identify those dogs captured by the law.
Neither will "have any impact whatsoever on the banning of pit bulls in the province of Ontario," said Bryant, who considers the decision a vindication of a law that critics have been denouncing for more than a year.
"Obviously, a pit bull ban is no panacea - nobody ever said it was - but what this does is it means that a dog that was never a pet, that is inherently dangerous, can be banned by the government," Bryant said.
"This is the first legislation of its kind, I would anticipate that it will now be copied in a number of jurisdictions across North America."
Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act was amended in 2005 and forced pit bull owners to muzzle, leash and sterilize their dogs or face a $10,000 fine or up to six months in jail - or both. It also outlawed the breeding of the dogs or banned them from being brought into the province.
During the hearing last year, Ruby argued statistics indicate there are other dogs more dangerous than pit bulls.
He cited a Canadian study that found that since 1983, 23 fatalities from dog attacks in which 55 dogs were involved. Only one dog involved was a pit bull breed, an American Staffordshire terrier.
In court documents, Crown lawyers argued the ban is necessary to protect the public from potential pit bull attacks.
They said attacks by pit bulls are more deadly than from other dogs and pit bulls often attack viciously without being provoked.
Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press