~Tucker&Me~
05-15-2006, 10:11 PM
CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, May 15, 2006
TORONTO — There is no evidence that pit bulls are any more prone to biting than other dogs, argued Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby Monday during a challenge of Ontario’s pit bull ban.
Instead, he encouraged the province to focus more on banning dangerous dogs, not just a select breed. He noted of 55 dogs involved in 23 fatal attacks in Canada since 1983, only one was a pit bull.
"There are scads of pit bulls out there who are safe, loving pets and will never hurt anyone," he told Judge Thea Herman during his final arguments in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice.
Ruby argued the breed-specific law does not focus on "dangerousness, but rather on breed and breed is not a sufficient enough marker of dangerousness to pass constitutional muster.
Ruby, who filed the constitutional challenge of the 2005 law on behalf of University of Toronto anthropology student Catherine Cochrane, said instead of cracking down on pit bulls, pet owners should be given the chance to prove their dog is not a threat to the public by having a vet test the animal for traits of aggressiveness or an unpredictable disposition.
© CanWest News Service 2006
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=cb4aaea6-96d3-4d37-9b15-2f1f650f1f6a&k=38653
~Tucker
Published: Monday, May 15, 2006
TORONTO — There is no evidence that pit bulls are any more prone to biting than other dogs, argued Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby Monday during a challenge of Ontario’s pit bull ban.
Instead, he encouraged the province to focus more on banning dangerous dogs, not just a select breed. He noted of 55 dogs involved in 23 fatal attacks in Canada since 1983, only one was a pit bull.
"There are scads of pit bulls out there who are safe, loving pets and will never hurt anyone," he told Judge Thea Herman during his final arguments in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice.
Ruby argued the breed-specific law does not focus on "dangerousness, but rather on breed and breed is not a sufficient enough marker of dangerousness to pass constitutional muster.
Ruby, who filed the constitutional challenge of the 2005 law on behalf of University of Toronto anthropology student Catherine Cochrane, said instead of cracking down on pit bulls, pet owners should be given the chance to prove their dog is not a threat to the public by having a vet test the animal for traits of aggressiveness or an unpredictable disposition.
© CanWest News Service 2006
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=cb4aaea6-96d3-4d37-9b15-2f1f650f1f6a&k=38653
~Tucker