The Canadian federal government does not regulate pit bull-type dogs,

Canada[edit]
The Canadian federal government does not regulate pit bull-type dogs, but one provincial

government and some municipal governments in Canada have enacted breed-specific

legislation banning or restricting pit bull-type dogs.

Legal challenges[edit]

Rally in front of the Ontario Legislative Building in Toronto supporting repeal of

breed-specific legislation in Ontario
In Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2007 CanLII 9231 (ON S.C.), Ms. Catherine

Cochrane sued the Province of Ontario to prevent it from enforcing the Dog Owner's

Liability Act (DOLA) ban on pit bull-type dogs, arguing that the law was

unconstitutionally broad because the ban was grossly disproportionate to the risk pit

bulls pose to public safety, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague because

failed to provide an intelligible definition of pit bulls. She also argued 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.
The presiding judge ruled that the DOLA was not overbroad because,

"The evidence with respect to the dangerousness of pit bulls, although conflicting and

inconclusive, is sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute a 'reasoned apprehension of

harm'. In the face of conflicting evidence as to the feasibility of less restrictive

means to protect the public, it was open to the legislature to decide to restrict the

ownership of all pit bulls."[25]

The presiding judge found the term "a pit bull terrier" was unconstitutionally vague

since it could include an undefined number of dogs similar to the American Pit Bull

Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.[25] The judge

also ruled that the government's ability to introduce a veterinarian’s certificate

certifying that the dog is a pit bull created a mandatory presumption that the dog was a

pit bull, and that this placed an unconstitutional burden of proof upon the defendant.

[25]

Ms. Cochrane and the Attorney General of Ontario appealed different aspects of the

decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.[26] In Cochrane v. Ontario (2008 ONCA 718),

the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's ruling:

It agreed with the lower court judge in finding that the “overbreadth” claim failed

because the legislature had acted on a “reasonable apprehension of harm.”
It disagreed that the definition of pit bull in the Act was insufficiently precise and

restored the original wording of "pit bull terrier" on the basis that, when read in the

context of “a more comprehensive definition,” the phrasing “a pit bull terrier” was

sufficiently precise.
It reversed the trial court and found that the government's ability to introduce a

veterinarian's certificate certifying a dog was a pit bull would constitute proof only

if the defendant failed to answer the claim: it was therefore a tactical burden, rather

an evidentiary burden.[27]
On June 11, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further appeal of the

case, thereby upholding the Ontario ban on pit bulls.[26]