Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights - Right to life, liberty and security of person - Presumption of innocence - Constitutional challenge of provincial legislation banning pit bulls - Overbreadth - Vagueness - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in importing a “no evidence” threshold for applicants to meet in order to establish a s. 7 Charter violation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the likelihood of imprisonment when assessing whether the amendments to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act are unconstitutionally overbroad - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the definition of “pit bull” is not unconstitutionally vague simply because there is an “identifiable core” of prohibited conduct - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the certificate provisions, which permit conviction despite the existence of a reasonable doubt, do not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter - Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16 - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(d).

In 2005, in the aftermath of a series of highly publicized pit bull attacks resulting in serious personal injury to several victims, the Ontario Legislature amended the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16 (“DOLA”) to ban the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bull dogs. The pit bull provisions allow those who own pit bulls at the time the amendment came into force or born 90 days thereafter to keep their dogs (“restricted pit bulls”). However, owners of restricted pit bulls are required by regulation to have their dogs sterilized and to leash and muzzle their dogs when in public places.

Cochrane owns a “Staffordshire terrier cross” that is a restricted pit bull and she attacks the constitutionality of Ontario’s law banning pit bull dogs. As a violation of the law can result in a penalty of imprisonment, Cochrane invokes the right not to be deprived of “life, liberty, and security of the person . . . except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter. She argues that a total ban is grossly disproportionate to the risk pit bulls pose to public safety, rendering the law unconstitutionally overbroad, and that the law fails to provide an intelligible definition of pit bulls, rendering the law unconstitutionally vague. Cochrane also argues that a provision allowing the Crown to introduce as evidence a veterinarian’s certificate certifying that the dog is a pit bull violates the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The application judge rejected the overbreadth argument but accepted the vagueness argument but only to a limited extent. Part of the definition of “pit bull” was struck down, but the most significant part of the definition was left intact. The application judge however did accept Cochrane’s s. 11(d) argument and struck down the veterinarian certificate provision. Cochrane appealed asking the appeal court to reverse the judgment and to strike down the pit bull provisions as being unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The Attorney General cross-appealed and asked that the definition of “pit bull” as enacted by the legislature, be restored. The Attorney General also cross-appealed the order striking down the provision relating to the use of a veterinarian’s certificate. The Court of Appeal concluded that the pit bull provisions did not violate any right guaranteed by the Charter. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal was allowed.