Montreal's new pit bull bylaw suspended until Wednesday

Quebec Superior Court Justice Louis Gouin has temporarily suspended the ban and restrictions on pit bull-type dogs until he makes a further ruling on Oct. 5.

Gouin's ruling comes at the end of full day of arguments by lawyers for the SPCAand the city of Montreal.

It essentiallyacts as a safeguard to ensure that Montrealers can continue to adopt pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs don't have to be muzzleduntil Gouinmakes his decision Wednesday on a longer temporary ban, which would last until the SPCA'schallenge of the bylaw is heard in court.

But while pit bulls won't need to wear a muzzle during thesuspension, any dog weighing more than 20 kilograms will still need to wear either a harness or halter. All other bylaws affecting cats and dogs are still in effect.

Lawyers for theSPCAhave argued thateven though the Supreme Court upheld Ontario's ban on pit bulls, Montreal's new animal control bylaw raises issues not yet heard by the courts.

Some ofthe issues theSPCAhaswith the bylaw include its "vagueand imprecise" definition of a "pit bull-type dog" andits lack of a means to challenge that classification.

'Do we go back to grandparents?' asks judge

Early in Monday'shearing, JusticeGouinsaid he had some of his own concernsabout the city's pit bull bylaw, echoing issues that the Montreal SPCA has been voicing for weeks.

One of those issues is how a "pit bull-type dog" is defined.

• Pit bull owners dogged by confusion over how to prove a breed

"I won't hide from you that in my reading of the bylaw I had several questions," he said to thecity's legal representative,RenCadieux.

"Are we talking about first generation crosses? Do we go back to the grandparents?"

• Showing support: St. John's pit bull owners stand against Montreal ban

Muzzles required outdoors, at all times

TheSPCA'slawyers,Marie-ClaudeSt-AmantandSibelAtaogul,smiled and nodded as the judge pointed out the need for clarification in the bylaw.

Gouinalso pointed out that the law suggests pit bull-type dogs should be muzzled at all times, which he said is obviously impossible since they need to be able to eat and drink water.

Cadieuxsaidthe city meant the dogsshould bemuzzled at all times when they areoutside, addingMontreal willbe updating itswebsite and making clarificationsfor the public.

• Proposed pit bull bylaw worries dog owners

Cadieux argued there arelegal precedentsthat favourthe city's position. Hereferredto the 2009 decision bytheSupreme Court to dismiss an application to hear an appeal of Ontario's ban on pit bulls.

He saidOntario's courtshavealready established that there isno need for concrete scientific evidence for breed specific legislation. He said the Court of Appeal for Ontariohas ruled that it's enough to rely on logic and common sense.

Cadieux says it's the same case here in Montreal.

"If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's got to be a duck."

• Is banning pit bulls moral?

Defining 'dangerous dogs'

Ataogulsaid Monday afternoon the arguments the SPCAis raising were not heard in the Ontario pit bull cases.

She said municipalities only have the right to seize or euthanize"dangerous" dogs or strays.

She said pit bulls don't fall under that definition, arguing it doesn't make sense to apply a blanket rule to all dogs of that type, regardless of their history or individual behaviour.

"There are plenty of dogs that are large and who could one day bite," Ataogulsaid.

The bylaw requires owners of such dogs to keep them within an enclosureat least two metres high when not on a leash, however, Ataogul said, it's not clear who would be responsible forbuilding those fences.

Charter case?

The bylaw would also contravene dog owners' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, she said, pointing out that the new rulesallowany competent authority to enter a home without a warrant.

Before closing her case, Ataogultook a shotatthe logicthat Mayor Denis Coderre has used to justify hisbylaw.

The mayor has repeatedly said it's his responsibility to protect Montrealersand thatthe regulation isabout public safety.

However, she said,theban and restrictions on pit bull-type dogswould in no way make the city a safer place.

'Sad, but not cruel,' says city's lawyer

The city of Montreal's lawyer argued, in turn, that under Ontario's law, authorities don't need to wait untila dog bites before acting.

Cadieux acknowledged that under Montreal's new bylaw, some "nice" pit bulls will face restrictions.

"It's sad, but not cruel," Cadieux said.

Justice Gouinsaid it's the vague definition of pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs in the bylaw which he finds most problematic.

"This is an invitation to rethink the terminology," the judge told Cadieux.

When it comes to identifying a pit bull, "it's like pornography," Cadieux told the court. "You know it when you see it."

Resolution by Wednesday?

Gouinsays he wantsto rule on the suspension of the bylaw by Wednesdayso that citizens can be informed.

"I want this to be a constructive discussion," he told both parties.

A second court challenge is being planned bya Montreal-basedcoalitionoflawyers and experts in animal behaviour.

Even if one of these legal challenges succeeds in seeing Montreal's new bylaw repealed, Quebec is working on itsownprovincial legislation.

This summer, Premier Philippe Couillard said Quebec would probably follow Ontario's lead and ban pit bulls.

However, the working group convened by the province recommended against banning pit bulls.

• Do pit bull bans work? Depends how you ask the question