If you are seeking the services of a dog attack lawyer or dog bite lawyer we can help. Over the past 35 years Haber & Associates have represented hundreds of victims of dog attacks from all over Ontario. We have become well know litigators within the parameters of dog attack injuries law – particularly with respect to children who have faced serious physical and mental injuries as a result of the damages they have sustained by being attacked by canines. We are personal injury lawyers that service injured victims in Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Toronto, Mississauga and all over Ontario. We have personal dog injury clients that have sought our assistance as far North as Sudbury.

A Quick Background
In 2005 the provincial government amended the Dog Owners’ Liability Act in order to prevent the breeding, sale and ownership of pitbull dogs.  They introduced this legislation because of the rising number of dog attacks and in particular, highly publicized pitbull attacks resulting in serious personal injury to several victims in the province.  For example, in 2003, a highly publicized case involving a pit bull named Bandit was euthanized after a Judge ordered the Toronto Humane Society to put the dog down or surrender it to the Ontario Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.  Bandit attacked a very young toddler and caused very serious injuries to its head after the child apparently tried to give the dog a kiss.  The boy needed more than 250 stitches.  The case was publicized because after the toddler was mauled the City ordered Bandit to be destroyed, however the owner appealed the death sentence and argued that the dog can be rehabilitated and socialized.

In October of 2004, the Toronto Police were forced to fire more than a dozen bullets into two pitbulls that had turned on a man who was walking the dogs as a favour to a friend.  Also in August 2004 in London, Ontario a woman and her 7-year old son watched in horror as a pit bull attempted to attack the family puppy and latched onto her husband’s arm as he attempted to intervene.   There was also a highly publicized 1998 case out of Stouffville, Ontario where an 8-year old girl was killed in a vicious dog attack.  In response to dog attacks like these, The Ontario Legislature amended the Dog Owners’ Liability Act to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pitbull dogs in response to the growing number of dog attacks throughout the province.

What Does Ontario Law State about PitBulls?
The Dog Owners’ Liability Act defines a pitbull as a pitbull terrier, a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American Staffordshire terrier, an American pitbull terrier and a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs previously referred to.  If an individual contravenes any provisions concerning pitbulls in the Dog Owners’ Liability Act then a document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians stating that the dog is a pitbull within the meaning of the Act can be receivable as evidence in court and the prosecution for an offence under the Act.  Since the introduction of this law no person in Ontario is allowed to own a pitbull, breed a pitbull, transfer a pitbull (whether by sale, gift or otherwise), abandoned a pitbull other than to a pound operated by a municipality, allow a pit bull in his/her possession to stray, import a pit bull into Ontario or train a pit bull for fighting.  There are exceptions that were regulated by the province.  If somebody owned a pit bull at the time that the law came into place then they these dogs are called “restricted pit bulls” and owners of restricted pit bulls were required by regulation to impose serious controls on these restricted pit bulls.

How are "Restricted" Pitbulls to Be Controlled in This Province?
People that own pitbulls at the time the law came into place were allowed to keep their dogs under certain rules and regulations.  For example, if you owned a pitbull at the time the law came into place then that pitbull must have been sterilized within 60 days after the regulation came into force unless the dog was physically unfit to be anaesthetized because of old age or infirmity.

Further, if someone owned a restricted pitbull than that owner is to ensure that the pitbull at all times is equipped with a muzzle or secured by a leash in accordance to certain rules.  A pitbull is to be fitted with a collar or harness that is properly fitted.  The movement of a pitbull shall be controlled by a person by means of a leash attached to the collar and harness, the pitbulls leash shall not be more than 1.8 meters in length and the leash and attachment between the leash and collar or harness are all to be strong enough to prevent the pitbull from breaking any of them.
Lastly, a pitbull does not have to be muzzled and secured by a leash if it is within an enclosed property occupied by the owner of the pitbull.  The owner of a pitbull shall also prevent a pit bull from breaking out of the property by enclosing it in a way that can be relied on to prevent this.

Five years later this law still stands.  After the enactment of the pit bull banning laws, a woman named Catherine Cochrane challenged the constitutionality of Ontario’s law banning the pit bull dogs.  Ms. Cochrane argued that the total ban of pit bulls was grossly disproportionate to the risk pit bulls pose to public safety, rendering the law unconstitutionally overbroad and that the law failed to provide an intelligible definition of pit bulls rendering the law unconstitutionally vague.  The Court of Appeal concluded that the pitbull provisions did not violate any right guaranteed by the Charter.  They believed that the definition of pitbull as enacted by Ontario legislature survived the Section 7 vagueness scrutiny.  The Supreme Court of Canada also denied an application for leave to appeal this case on June 11, 2009.  As a result, this law still stands in our province.

Despite the ban there are still numerous violations that have taken place.  For example, in the case of Neubia Letourneau v. City of Toronto, the Applicant brought an application to have a judge review the decision of a supervisor and Animal Services for the City of Toronto who ordered that her two pit bull dogs be destroyed.  Judge Swinton noted that 

"the operator of a pound who believes it has possession of a pit bull, must provide the owner with an opportunity to satisfy the pound that the dog is not a pit bull, or that the dog is a restricted pit bull and the owner has complied with all the requirements of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act and its regulation relating to pit bulls.  Among those regulations is the requirement that a dog be muzzled and leashed unless it is in an enclosed property.  If the operator of a pound is satisfied then unless the operator has reason to believe that the return of the dog would pose a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, the operator shall return the dog to the owner.  If the pound operator decides not to return the dog then he/she shall destroy the dog or transfer it in accordance with the Dog Owners’ Liability Act."

In this case, on August 9, 2009, well over 4 years post-pit bull amendments, an elderly woman was bitten by dogs outside the apartment building where the applicant resided.  The applicant’s dogs were identified and an order was made to have the dogs placed in quarantine at the Toronto Animal Services Shelter in order to check for rabies.  It was then found that references made to two earlier incidents in 2005 and 2007 with people that were bitten by the dogs at the residence of the applicant.  The pound operator expressed her conclusion that the dogs are a danger to the public.  An investigation was carried out and a security video from the apartment building of the dog owner showed that two dogs were deliberately let off their leashes before being let outside and that neither was wearing a muzzle.  Therefore the dogs were ordered destroyed.  Judge Swinton noted that the applicant was provided with procedural fairness throughout the decision making process and the decision of the pound operator was a reasonable one.  The Judge found that the dogs should not be returned to the owner, they were a danger to the public and they should be destroyed.

Should I Speak to a Lawyer if I Have Been Bitten or Attacked by a Dog?
If you become the victim of a dog bite the most important thing you need to do is immediatley do is seek medical attention and then identify the animal that has attacked you and verify it has been properly vaccinated against rabies. If you cannot get confirmation the animal is free of rabies you might need to begin treatment for rabies. Once this is done then you should absolutely seek the advice of a lawyer.  In a civil context (a lawsuit), the owner of a dog may be liable for damages as a result from any bite or attack that caused injuries to you.  In addition, if a dog has mauled another domestic animal that belonged to you may entitle you to damages.  Haber & Associates often deals with dog attacks and dog bites.  We have become renown throughout the province for our representation of injured dog attack victims.  If you or a loved one has been the victim of a dog attack, then please contact our office for a no-fee and no-obligation consultation.  We are simply happy to explain your legal rights to you. Wevisit in hospital.

*The above is not legal advice.  The above does not constitute a solicitor client relationship.  The above is a comment on the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, the Ontario Regulation 157/05 Pit Bull Control Regulation, Cochrane v. Ontario and Letourneau v. City of Toronto. 

In Ontario, this situation is called contributory negligence.  The term “contributory” is defined by Webster’s as “helping to bring about a result”.  This can obviously be defined as you contributing to your own injuries by not wearing your seatbelt.  It does not mean that you are responsible for your injuries. The question to be asked is: did you fail to take reasonable precautions for your own safety and therefore contribute to your own injures?  

Engineering studies have shown over and over for the past 30 years that seatbelts worn properly will minimize injuries that occur in accidents.  They have never been shown to worsen injury. They have been shown to produce injuries – but at the same time they have prevented more serious injuries.  Transport Canada as well as the leading auto manufacturers have supported these conclusions by numerous tests carried out over the past 30 years.  All Canadian provinces have compulsory legislation that require occupants of a car to wear a seatbelt, it is a provincial offence to not wear a seatbelt.

How does you not wearing a seatbelt play out legally? When you are involved in an accident, the onus is on the defendant driver to prove that you failed to wear a seatbelt and that if you had been wearing your seatbelt, your injuries would have been prevented or lessened.  The onus then shifts to you to show that is was unreasonable to wear a seatbelt or that by wearing a seatbelt the injuries would have been worse or the same, which is a very tough argument.

In 2003 the Ontario Court of Appeal decided a very important case.  This case, called Snushall v. Fulsang is the seminal Ontario decision that gave guidance to lawyers concerning victims injured in automobile accidents that were not wearing seatbelts.  

The Court relied on a large number of cases that had developed over the years in considering how to determine a plaintiff’s share of contributory negligence for failing to wear a seatbelt.  They determined after a study of a large number of past cases that a reasonable range of contributory negligence would range from 5% to 25%.  This means if you are paid damages (money) for pain and suffering, the money paid to you would be reduced by a range of 5% to 25%.   Essentially, it must be shown that your injuries would have been reduced had the seatbelt been worn.  The Court suggested that the contributory negligence of a plaintiff not wearing a seatbelt should not exceed 25%.  This decision was helpful to injured victims that were not wearing seatbelts in that if they proceeded to a trial there would be a cap on their exposure of 25% reduction.  

Obviously there are difficult situations to analyze such as when a person is killed in a car accident.  If the accident is severe enough to completely demolish an automobile, it may become an argument as to whether or not they were wearing seatbelt and proper engineers and experts must be utilized to assess the seatbelt contraptions and injuries caused to the body of the deceased.  There is also the issue of whether the vehicle equipped with lap and shoulder belts were “functioning” at the time of the accident.  If this were an issue the same as the above would apply.  Evidence must shown by experts that the seatbelt was functioning or not and the tensioning apparatus’ were fastly secured.  There is a real possibility that if an accident is devastating enough then either the recoil mechanisms, shoulder harness, restraining harness, tensioning apparatus, recoil mechanisms, seatbelt clip or the general mechanics of the seatbelt may be damaged or were in fact not properly working at the time of the accident.  The Court of Appeal noted that 25% is the very high end of the range of contribution which is mostly allocated in cases where 100% of the loss could have been avoided had the seatbelt been worn.  When people die in car accidents and it is unknown whether or not they were wearing a seatbelt, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not death could have been avoided, depending on the severity and mechanics of impact.  That being said, the majority of car accidents that occur in Ontario do not involve death.  Normally car accident lawyers with experience are able to assess a proportionate liability in your case and deal with it accordingly.  Therefore, if you have been injured in a car accident and you were not wearing a seatbelt, it is important that you speak to a lawyer because not all is lost.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact Haber & Associates.

Although there are lawyers at Haber & Associates that practice wihtin various areas of law, personal injury has long been practiced by Christopher Haber and several of his associates.   If you or a loved one has been seriously injured by the fault of another, then it is important that you simply not only look at whether a law firm "practices personal injury", but it is also important to enquire and ask certain questions such as: How long has the firm been actively involved in personal injury?  Do they understand the complex Provincial auto insurance legislation?   Will they understand the complex laws surrounding accident benefits?  Do they have knowledge of the Occupiers Liability Act and all of the laws which govern slip and falls in Ontario?  Are they familiar with working with actuaries and economists in putting together economic loss assumptions if you or your loved one is no longer able to work?  Do they understand how to help you replace lost income when the mortgage and bills are falling behind?   Are they in contact with the best rehabilitation advisors and case managers for your specific situation?  Are they familiar with life care planning and catastrophic case management?

The above are examples of questions that are important when choosing a personal injury law firm.  Equally importantly are questions such as: do you understand what I am going through?  Have you dealt with people with injuries like mine that are rendering my life unbearable?  Can you help my family?  Can you help put me in a position economically that I was in before I was injured?  Will you understand my questions and will you understand the pain that I am going through?

These are also types of questions that render very important answers when choosing a personal injury law firm.   Christopher Haber has been practicing personal injury law for nearly 40 years.  He has tried dozens of cases to jury verdict and he has pushed the envelope for the rights of accident victims for the preponderance of his career. Christopher works with a team of lawyers and clerks solely on accident cases, examples of which include:

    *     Very serious motorcycle accident cases
    *     Very serious car accident cases
    *     Car accident cases involving pedestrians
    *     Fatality cases/multiple fatality cases
    *     Wrongful death cases
    *     Impaired driving causing death civil suits
    *     Serious assault and attack cases
    *     Paraplegic life care planning
    *     Brain injury cases
    *     Very serious orthopedic fracture cases
    *     Dog maulings including both adults and children and
    *     Serious slip and fall cases.

Who are our clients?
Our clients are ordinary people like you.  They are teachers, firefighters, construction workers, steelworkers, city workers, welders, doctors, dentists, factory workers, accountants, financial planners, moms and dads, grandma, grandpas, people on social assistance and even pregnant women or moms on maternity leave.   Our clients are simply people like you that come from all walks of life that have been seriously injured and desperately require help to rehabilitate themselves back into normal life, both from a physical and financial aspect.

Clients will tell you that the reputation of Haber & Associates for the availability and accessibility to lawyers is unprecedented.  We can be reached 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Our personal attention to cases is second to none.  Christopher Haber’s trial experience, in combination with overseeing every case with his undivided attention and time is not only comforting to our injured clients, but reassuring that he will be precisely determined to recover compensation to help rebuild lives.

We are personal injury lawyers in St. Catharines, Stoney Creek, Hamilton, Ancaster, Waterdown, Burlington, Milton, Oakville and Mississauga.  If you require a personal injury lawyer to explain your rights to you, we are always pleased to offer a no-obligation consultation in or out of hospital with you or your loved ones.

If you would like to set up a consultation please contact Haber & Associates at 905.639.8894.

Every aspect of estate planning should include a Power of Attorney for Personal Care.  A Power of Attorney for Personal Care is a voluntary legal planning document in which you name an Attorney to make decisions for you regarding your health, care, medical care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, hygiene and safety at such time that you are unable to make decisions for yourself.  The person that you name is able to legally act on your behalf. If you become disabled, or begin to suffer from dementia or other cognitive difficulties, you will need a loved one or trusted friend help to you make decisions with respect to your health care.  

Once you execute your Power of Attorney, it become effective immediately unless otherwise stated in the document.  At Haber & Associates, we strongly encourage your Power of Attorney to be structured as something called a "continuing Power of Attorney” - meaning that your Power of Attorney for Personal Care is effective only upon your incapacity. It “springs” into life upon your incapacity to make decisions for yourself.  If there are issues with capacity, we ensure that the document calls for proper assessments to be made to determine whether in fact you are capable of making your own health care decisions.

It is vital that you protect yourself and your loved ones should you become mentally incapable.  If you do not properly plan your who will make decisions should you become disabled -  a family member has the right to make your health care decisions or apply to become your “guardian” of property. The person making decisions for you may result in making make decisions that you would not have made for yourself – or worse off – decisions may be made by a family member that you would not have wanted to make decisions for you.

A power of attorney is an estate planning document that is of onetime cost without revolving premiums like an insurance or disability policy.  Once you have drafted it is a secure for life document that will protect you in the future. If estate planning costs frighten you, rest assured that simple estate planning is very affordable - and there is no requirement that you complete an entire estate planning package all at once.  Planning a simple Power of Attorney for Personal Care is not an expensive proposition.  If you don’t have this document and something happens to you, the opposite is true; the costs of obtaining authority to make decisions on your behalf could be enormous.

If you have any questions about a Power of Attorney for Personal Care, please contact Haber & Associates at (905)-639-8894.

Burlington Post Article - March 2010. 
As of January 1, 2010 the Small Claims Court limits were increased from $10,000 to $25,000.  This now allows individuals and businesses to resolve more claims in a simple and inexpensive way.  For example, a Small Claims procedure advances much more rapidly than a typical lawsuit.  Typically under Small Claims you can have settlement conference within 3 months and a trial within 5 months, depending on the area.  Upping the limit to $25,000 simply improves access to justice for all Ontarians, including many middle class citizens who could afford a lawyer but did not retain a lawyer or did not pursue a Small Claims matter because the recovery of $10,000 simply wouldn’t justify the expense of hiring a lawyer.  Now under the $25,000 increased limit, it may make sense to hire a lawyer to pursue damages you believe you are entitled to.  In addition, you are able to claim 15% of the value of the amount claimed.  Therefore if you claim $25,000 and you recover $25,000, the contribution towards your legal fees is $3,750.00.  In most typical Small Claims matters Haber & Associates will represent you for a fixed fee.  Therefore at the end of a trial don’t expect to receive a monstrous legal bill. 

You will know exactly what you are paying the day you meet us.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Haber & Associates at (905)-639-8894.