If you would like to speak with us please use the contact form or call Matt Lalande at 905-639-8894.
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. We receive referrals from lawyers and medical specialists from all over
Ontario to represent them with serious dog attacks, dog bites or even wrongful deaths resulting from vicious dog attacks.
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 deal with 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 Ontario?
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.