FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS ADVISORY
On March 23, 2007, Madam Justice Herman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released her decision respecting our constitutional challenge to Ontario's pit bull legislation (Cochrane v. Attorney General of Ontario). Substantial parts of the legislation were struck down. We saved "pit bull terriers" but not the other breeds. We made it impossible for the Crown to prove its case with a piece of paper signed by a veterinarian. But it was not enough. We appealed Justice Herman's decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (court file no. C47649). The Attorney General cross-appealed. Our appeals will be heard beginning Monday, September 15, 2008 at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto beginning at 10:30 a.m. (courtroom to be determined). We have two days of hearings scheduled (September 15 and 16, 2008).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT CLAYTON RUBY AT RUBY & EDWARDH, BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS, AT 416-964-9664 OR BREESE DAVIES AT DI LUCA, COPELAND, DAVIES, BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS, AT 416-868-1825 EXT. 221.
and from another source
Ont. pit bull ban to be challenged again
Canwest News Service
Friday, September 12, 2008
An appeal to a 2007 court ruling on Ontario's pit bull ban is to be heard in
Toronto next week.
Following a decision to strike down parts but not all of the province's Dog
Owners' Liability Act in March 2007, Toronto civil rights lawyer Clayton
Ruby filed an appeal, claiming the definition of pit bull is too broad.
Ruby, who is arguing the case on behalf of Toronto pit-bull owner Catherine
Cochrane, said he would argue the definition of 'pit bull' is too broad as
it is written in the law.
After listing four specific breeds of pit bull terrier, a clause states any
dogs that look "substantially similar" to pit bulls are subject to the ban.
Ruby said he'd be surprised if there were more than 150 of the specified
dogs in Ontario - namely Staffordshire, American Staffordshire, pit bull,
and American pit bull terriers - and that the following clause could include
dozens of different breeds.
If the justices agree that the definition is too vague, Ruby said he expects
the provincial act to be struck down entirely.
The appeal is to be heard at the Court of Appeal at Osgoode Hall in downtown
Toronto.
PRESS ADVISORY
On March 23, 2007, Madam Justice Herman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released her decision respecting our constitutional challenge to Ontario's pit bull legislation (Cochrane v. Attorney General of Ontario). Substantial parts of the legislation were struck down. We saved "pit bull terriers" but not the other breeds. We made it impossible for the Crown to prove its case with a piece of paper signed by a veterinarian. But it was not enough. We appealed Justice Herman's decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (court file no. C47649). The Attorney General cross-appealed. Our appeals will be heard beginning Monday, September 15, 2008 at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto beginning at 10:30 a.m. (courtroom to be determined). We have two days of hearings scheduled (September 15 and 16, 2008).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT CLAYTON RUBY AT RUBY & EDWARDH, BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS, AT 416-964-9664 OR BREESE DAVIES AT DI LUCA, COPELAND, DAVIES, BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS, AT 416-868-1825 EXT. 221.
and from another source
Ont. pit bull ban to be challenged again
Canwest News Service
Friday, September 12, 2008
An appeal to a 2007 court ruling on Ontario's pit bull ban is to be heard in
Toronto next week.
Following a decision to strike down parts but not all of the province's Dog
Owners' Liability Act in March 2007, Toronto civil rights lawyer Clayton
Ruby filed an appeal, claiming the definition of pit bull is too broad.
Ruby, who is arguing the case on behalf of Toronto pit-bull owner Catherine
Cochrane, said he would argue the definition of 'pit bull' is too broad as
it is written in the law.
After listing four specific breeds of pit bull terrier, a clause states any
dogs that look "substantially similar" to pit bulls are subject to the ban.
Ruby said he'd be surprised if there were more than 150 of the specified
dogs in Ontario - namely Staffordshire, American Staffordshire, pit bull,
and American pit bull terriers - and that the following clause could include
dozens of different breeds.
If the justices agree that the definition is too vague, Ruby said he expects
the provincial act to be struck down entirely.
The appeal is to be heard at the Court of Appeal at Osgoode Hall in downtown
Toronto.
