Montreal mayor Denis Coderre, who tried to protect the public from pit bulls, was instead sent to the doghouse.
Judge continues to hold “pit bull” to be a “breed,” rather than traits common to fighting dogs
MONTREAL, Quebec––Quebec Superior Court Judge Louis Gouin on October 5, 2016 extended his October 3, 2016 delay of enforcement of the newly adopted Montreal ban on pit bulls until such time as all litigation against it is heard and the ban is held to be legal under Quebec and Canadian law.
This could mean a delay of years while lower courts review the multiple cases filed against the Montreal ban by the Montreal SPCA and other pit bull advocates, and the verdicts, whichever way they go, proceed through appeals.
The flags are those of Montreal on the left, Canada on the right.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Judge Gouin had already all but ordered the Montreal city council to amend the definition of “pit bull” in the ordinance.
Judge rejected argument based on “common sense”
In so doing, Gouin interpreted “pit bull” to be a “breed,” the traits of which might be extinguished after a specific number of crosses with other breeds, rather than a morphological type, the dangerous characteristics of which might be intensified by out-crosses to enhance traits such as size, speed, and jumping ability.
Montreal city attorney René Cadieux on October 5, 2016 argued unsuccessfully that applications of common sense should be sufficient to ensure fair and effective enforcement of the Montreal bylaw.
Montreal city attorney Rene Cadieux
Definition in bylaw
Adopted on September 28, 2016 by a vote of 37-23, the bylaw forbids Montrealers from acquiring any new American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, bull-Staffordshire terriers, and/or other dogs bred from crosses with the listed breeds, or who have similar morphological characteristics. This is the definition of “pit bull” which has already been upheld by every level of court in Ontario and was accepted on appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada, after Ontario banned pit bulls in 2005.
Judge Louis Gouin
Pit bulls already in Montreal are allowed to stay, providing that they are licensed, vaccinated, and kept leashed and muzzled when in public places.
In the event of disputes over the identities of individual dogs, provincial or municipal courts could be asked to rule on appeal, Cadieux said.
Accepted all Montreal SPCA arguments
As well as accepting whole the Montreal SPCA argument that the Montreal definition of “pit bull” is too broad, Judge Gouin endorsed the Montreal SPCA contention that the pit bull ban may violate the 2015 Quebec provincial Act on the welfare and safety of animals, the first significant update of Quebec humane law since 1892.
Foreground: Montreal mayor Denis Coderre. Background: anti-pit bull ban demonstrators whose signs, overwhelmingly in English, suggested that they may have come from the U.S.
Explained Christiane Desjardins of La Presse, “The law states that animals are not goods, and are endowed with sensitivity and biological imperatives. It is forbidden to cause an animal to be in distress, and obligations in this sense are imposed [upon city ordinances], the judge noted.
Municipal Powers Act
“On the other hand,” Desjardins continued, “Article 63 of the Municipal Powers Act allows a municipality to impound, sell or remove any ‘stray or dangerous’ animal. But Judge Gouin assessed that the Montreal bylaw definitions of ‘pitbull-type dog’ and ‘dog prohibited’ clearly aim at a very broad category of dogs, most of whom are not dangerous, he said, ‘according the true sense of the word.’”
In this regard, Judge Gouin was himself imprecise, since Article 63 of the Municipal Powers Act does not define “dangerous” in any “sense of the word.”
Pit bull advocates tend to ignore the right of small dogs to live in safety.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Rather, Article 63 of the Municipal Powers Act leaves the apprehension of what might be considered “dangerous” to local authorities to decide.
Options
Following Judge Gouin’s October 5, 2016 verdict, the Montreal city council has three options: to appeal to a higher court to lift Gouin’s temporary restraining order pending resolution of all lawsuits brought against the pit bull ban, which would be an unlikely approach; to amend or rescind the pit bull ban, according to Gouin’s recommendations; or to hold off on enforcement of the pit bull ban while the further appeals proceed.
Please help us continue speaking truth to power: 
A true case of throwing out the baby and KEEPING the bathwater. Meanwhile, no doubt, many will suffer as a result of this one judge’s poor decision, even the pit bulls themselves. Sad day.
As you may know by now, the mayor of Montreal has appealed this judge’s ruling. Cyberhug for this wonderful mayor and human being.
Common sense would seem to be the casualty here.
According to La Presse this (Thursday) morning, Mayor Coderre favours an immediate appeal of the decision, and suggests that, “with respect to both Judge Gouin and the legal institution, his decision was not well founded in either the facts or in law.” He said he remains determined to ban pit bulls from the city of Montréal. He also indicated that he had anticipated clashing with “the pit bull lobbies,” but was sorry that the debate had so quickly been reduced to emotions. The use of the plural “lobbies” draws attention to the fact that, per the usual pattern, people from outside the jurisdiction are trying to influence the process.