Petitorial 

We are told that ignorance of the law in no excuse. Thats all well and good if laws are clear and simple to understand. When the laws themselves cannot be accurate in the terms used, we end up with a muddle. Unclear and vague laws result in confusion, unnecessary expense to taxpayers and those brought before the courts, and injustice.

The Dog Owners Liability Act is a perfect example of inadequate definitions leading to confusion. Passed here in Ontario in 2005, the law bans and otherwise places severe restrictions on pit bulls.

The law starts by defining pit bull as a pit bull terrier, a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American Staffordshire terrier or an American pit bull terrier. To the uninitiated, this seems straightforward enough. To the dog expert and those who would enforce such a law, there are several problems with these definitions.

Firstly, there is actually no such breed as pit bull terrier. So the first definition in the Dog Owners Liability Act is of a breed that does not in fact exist. Actually, the term pit bull is a very loose term such as hound or terrier or retriever and there is no such breed as pit bull either.

The other three are identifiable breeds. The only problem is that, unless one has pedigree papers identifying a lineage, the best any expert can do is to state that a particular dog is possibly or probably of this or that breed. There is no DNA test that can be done to determine anything beyond the fact that it is a dog, rather than a fox or a wolf or a cat.

It gets worse. The next definition of pit bull in the Dog Owners Liability Act is any dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar If experts have so much trouble identifying with any degree of certainty the recognized breeds, this is (pardon the expression) a dogs breakfast.

First of all, what does substantially similar mean? For a great many people, any shorthaired dog with a squarish snout is seen to be a pit bull. Boxers have been so identified. So have Labrador retrievers. Not to mention the huge numbers of dogs of mixed and unknown parentage.

There are many purebred breeds which are similar in appearance to the three included in the law and which are clearly not pit bulls. And there is such a huge difference in appearance between, say, an American pit bull terrier at 80 lbs. and a Staffordshire bull terrier at 35 lbs. that trying to find similar traits in another dog gives so much latitude that a terrific number of dogs could be included. When you then throw in dogs of mixed parentage, the problem of identifying a pit bull with any degree of certainty becomes insurmountable.

After throwing a wide net with imprecise definitions that could include huge numbers of dogs that are not pit bulls at all, the law as originally passed then stated, If it is alleged in any proceeding under this section that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog. At least this may give an out for the many purebred breeds which are similar in appearance to the three included in the law and which are clearly not pit bulls if the owners have pedigree papers. For the rest of us who own dogs without official papers, were out of luck.

But the worst definition in the Dog Owners Liability Act is the one implied that every American pit bull terrier, every American Staffordshire terrier and every Staffordshire bull terrier is, by the fact of being one of these breeds, inherently vicious and dangerous. Every dog expert in the public hearings held before the law was passed warned against this obvious untruth and the resultant prejudicial enforcement.

When asked in parliament, Attorney General, there is no such breed as pit bull. How will you prove that a dog is a pit bull? Michael Bryant gleefully answered, We dont have to. Were going to make them prove they arent .

On another occasion, our former Attorney General and architect of this law, said Ive said before and I will say again, if it walks like a pit bull, if it barks and bites like a pit bull, wags its tail like a pit bull, its a pit bull. That is going to apply, Im sure, to the vast majority of identification cases. Yet Mr. Bryant himself could not pick out the pit bull when asked to identify one from a number of photographs.

This hardly inspires confidence when our lawmakers play so loose with definitions.

Ignorance of the law may be no excuse. But ignorance by our lawmakers in formulating laws is inexcusable.