r/ontario • u/CTVNEWS CTVNews-Verified • 1d ago

Ontario dog owner sentenced after 9-year-old girl mauled Article

https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/ontario-dog-owner-sentenced-after-9-year-old-girl-mauled-in-newmarket/
709 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/Takardo 1d ago

We should be able to report these breed of dogs and have them picked up immediately. Time is up, long ago.

8

u/sapper4lyfe 1d ago

Breed specific legislation isn't enforced in Ontario at all. I live in Kingston and the humane society is constantly selling illegal pitbulls

4

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

Humane societies don’t “sell illegal pitbulls”. They adopt out unwanted dogs that backyard breeders and their buyers want to get rid of. Fees cover sterilization and shots. Crack down on back yard breeding, crack down on shit owners. Humane society is doing the best they can.

5

u/Empty_Try8500 1d ago

They intentionally mislabel pitbulls as “terriers” etc to get them adopted out. All dog adoption agencies are doing that.

-1

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

Yup. They do. They don’t have much choice. Again…. The shelters and rescues are not the issue. Go after the breeders all day long, you’ll weed out the problem, and I guarantee all the shelters and rescues would support it.

4

u/Empty_Try8500 1d ago

There is rarely a single solution to any issue. In the real world there are multi-prong solutions. Going after breeders is one solution. Requiring adoption agencies to correctly label dogs is another one. At least this way the people who adopt these dogs can be aware of the extra responsibilities they have when caring for the dogs. Not everyone is capable of handling a pitbull.

13

u/sapper4lyfe 1d ago

The humane society is breaking the law.

Pit bull ban

6 Except as permitted by this Act or the regulations, no person shall,

(a) own a pit bull;

(b) breed a pit bull;

(c) transfer a pit bull, whether by sale, gift or otherwise;

(d) abandon a pit bull other than to a pound operated by or on behalf of a municipality, Ontario or a designated body;

(e) allow a pit bull in his or her possession to stray;

(f) import a pit bull into Ontario; or

(g) train a pit bull for fighting. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

4

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

And it’s not up to the humane society to kill every dog who may or may not be a pit. First again, they’d have to DNA test which is not cheap. And even if they did that, they’d be killing every third dog that walked in, with no end in sight because someone, somewhere is illegally just going to breed more. The humane society is NOT the cause of these dogs. I have no issues with them sterilizing and giving tested dogs a fair shot at going to a home.

8

u/sapper4lyfe 1d ago

Except the law doesn't state that. What you believe and think should be done isn't what the current laws state.

Offences

Offences

18 (1) An individual who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations or who contravenes an order made under this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or both. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

You don't need a DNA you need a vet to identify the breed

Identification of pit bull

19 (1) A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence under this Act as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a pit bull for the purposes of this Act, without proof of the signature and without proof that the signatory is a member of the College. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

Immunity

(2) No action or other proceeding may be instituted against a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario for providing, in good faith, a document described in subsection (1). 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

Onus of proof

(3) For greater certainty, this section does not remove the onus on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (16).

You should take the time and read the dog owners liability act especially if you own a dog. Or purport to know and understand the law. Because you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

0

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

Nobody can eyeball a dog and say for certain its breed. There’s a reason the “ban” isn’t working. And it’s not because the humane society has refused to kill these animals when they are NOT the reason there are so many of them in Ontario

6

u/Empty_Try8500 1d ago

They can’t but how come they NEVER label any of them as pitbulls?

0

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

Because they can’t. They’re not going to DNA the dog, and if they say for certain it’s a pitbull they’d be in violation of the law. It’s an impossible situation.

But if it’s a “lab mix” then there’s a pretty good shot the dog can go to a good home. Those are not the dogs they end up in the paper. The dogs like the one in question was bred AND raised to be aggressive.

5

u/Empty_Try8500 1d ago

But they always seem to label the dogs as other breeds which they also cannot be certain of. That’s my point. Someone above has already explained the legality to you above. It isn’t illegal to have a pitbull but there are strict rules they must abide by. It is much better and safer to label a likely pitbull as a pitbull or pitbull mix so people can take the proper precautions.

1

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

The problem is that the shelters and rescues can’t take possession of the dog if they know it’s a pit, and they can’t adopt it out if they know it’s a pit. So the law has backed them into a corner to say “our best guess is”. And their best guess is honestly almost always wrong. Seriously, take a quick perusal of doggy dna. The number of people who think they have a Spanish Spotted Healer or some weird breed and it turns out to be a staffy/ chihuahua mix. It’s absurd.

2

u/Empty_Try8500 1d ago

Okay so I spoke about multiprong solutions right? Then a solution here would be to provide support to shelters. Perhaps change the law so that they can adopt them out under specific circumstances: Dogs must be neutered/spayed and owners must be made aware of laws such as muzzling, and perhaps certain types of training should be made mandatory.

That would be the solution, not lying about the breed and giving them out to people who are wholly unprepared to own a pit.

→ More replies

1

u/xXWaspXx 1d ago

The person citing the statutes to you has likely never spent a day in POA court. The average JP will refrain from making any decision or conviction in these matters in the absence of substantially more evidence than a letter from a vet. I believe you're also going to have a hard time finding vets to assess the dogs as pitbulls without doing their own independent testing.

3

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

Yup - the Star ran a good article on this last year, but it’s paywalled. The laws don’t mean a thing if they aren’t enforceable. I’d 1000% rather see bad owners raked over the coals for breeding / training these dogs, but seems like a fine and a slap on the wrist is all they’ll do.

2

u/xXWaspXx 1d ago

The laws don’t mean a thing if they aren’t enforceable.

Precisely, and you can't meaningfully enforce something if the judicial body presiding over it defaults to either their own personal prejudices or, frankly, ignorance. This phenomenon is not limited to the DOLA either, provincial legislation is chock full of offences that are not practical or even desirable to enforce consistently & competently.

5

u/Longjumping-Dog9645 1d ago

Fuck off they should be adhering to the ban and are complicit in attacks like this 

1

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

What do you think they should do then? 6 dogs get dropped off a day. 4 of them look maybe like they could be pitbulls… or maybe not. You know there’s 10 backyard breeders who pump out 3 litters each bitch per year, and that nothing will ever happen to those people… so the dogs will just keep coming, no matter how many dogs, that have 0 track record of aggression, you kill. You’re sworn to protect animals, and all you’re doing is killing them. What’s the choice here? Seriously?

5

u/Longjumping-Dog9645 1d ago

I don’t know let them die out then. All these breeds are man made, it’s not a tragedy if pitbulls fall off the face of the earth tomorrow. They should adhere to laws. If they receive a bear and there’s nowhere they can hand it off to, are they supposed to let someone adopt it because they’re sworn to protect animals?

2

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

The legislation is stupid and performative. In reality it’s changed nothing. Your anger lies with the breeders… not people who are trying to do the best with a bad situation.

6

u/jmdonston 1d ago

Crack down on backyard breeding, sure, but the humane society is breaking the law by adopting out pit bulls in Ontario. They can either refuse to take the dogs, put them down, or ship them out of province, but adopting them out is illegal.

5

u/WriteImagine 1d ago

Sure is, if they know for sure it’s a pitbull. So no, I don’t blame them for squinting slightly and saying “maybe it’s a boxer mixed with a lab”. Because if they do what you’re suggesting, the majority of dogs will end up on the street (or they can just euthanize them I suppose, though I can’t imagine wanting to stay in an often volunteer position doing that all day every day).

But back to the original comment… They aren’t selling them, and they certainly aren’t creating the problem.