Cochrane v. Ont. (A.G.), 2008 ONCA 718

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Laskin, Sharpe and Cronk, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 ONCA 718
• Citation: 2008 ONCA 718,(2008), 242 O.A.C. 192 (CA),92 OR (3d) 321,301 DLR (4th) 414,61 CR (6th) 374,[2008] OJ No 4165 (QL),170 ACWS (3d) 508,179 CRR 310,242 OAC 192,[2008] O.J. No 4165 (QL),301 D.L.R. (4th) 414,(2008), 242 OAC 192 (CA),92 O.R. (3d) 321,242 O.A.C. 192
• Date: 24 October 2008
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Cochrane v. Ont. (A.G.) (2008), 242 O.A.C. 192 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.079

Catherine Cochrane (applicant/appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario (respondent/respondent/appellant by way of cross-appeal)

(C47649; 2008 ONCA 718)

Indexed As: Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Sharpe and Cronk, JJ.A.

October 24, 2008.

Summary:

Cochrane, the owner of a "Staffordshire terrier cross" (pit bull), commenced an application attacking the constitutionality of Ontario's law banning pit bull dogs (i.e., the Dog Owners' Liability Act), claiming that it was contrary to ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 327, allowed the application in part, striking down part of the definition of "pit bull" on the ground of vagueness and striking down a provision which allowed the Crown to introduce as evidence a veterinarian's certificate certifying that a dog was a pit bull. Cochrane appealed, seeking to have all the pit bull provisions struck down as being overbroad and vague. The Attorney General cross-appealed, seeking to have the definition of "pit bull" restored and the order striking down the veterinarian's certificate provision set aside.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Cochrane's appeal and allowed the cross-appeal. The court held that the pit bull provisions did not violate any right guaranteed by the Charter.

Animals - Topic 2603

Animal control - General - Pit bull restrictions - The Dog Owners' Liability Act banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bull dogs - Cochrane, the owner of a "Staffordshire terrier cross" that was a restricted pit bull, claimed that the pit bull provisions were contrary to s. 7 of the Charter because they were overbroad and vague - She argued also that the procedure in s. 19 of the Act for providing proof that a dog was a pit bull through a veterinarian's certificate violated s. 11(d) of the Charter (i.e., the presumption of innocence) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the pit bull provisions did not violate any right guaranteed by the Charter - The provisions were not overbroad - The definition of "pit bull" was not constitutionally vague - The court also held that s. 19 (the veterinarian's certificate provision) did not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See Animals - Topic 2603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See Animals - Topic 2603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4909

Presumption of innocence - General principles - Circumstances not infringing presumption - [See Animals - Topic 2603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8626

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Regulation of guaranteed rights - Vagueness rule - [See Animals - Topic 2603 ].

Words and Phrases

Pit bull - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the constitutionality of the definition of "pit bull" as it was used in s. 1(1) of the Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D-16 - See paragraph 18 to 53.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827; 320 N.R. 49; 348 A.R. 201; 321 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Clay (C.J.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735; 313 N.R. 252; 181 O.A.C. 350, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 35].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 43].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

JTI-Macdonald Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610; 364 N.R. 89, refd to. [para. 43].

Madronero v. Lachine (Ville), [1990] Q.J. No. 307 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Manitoba Association of Dog Owners Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al. (1993), 99 Man.R.(2d) 100 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 102 Man.R.(2d) 1; 93 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Hearn v. Overland Park (1989), 244 Kan. 638; 772 P.2d 758, cert. denied (1989), 493 U.S. 976, refd to. [para. 46].

Ohio v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168; 566 N.E.2d 1224, cert. denied (1991), 501 U.S. 1257, refd to. [para. 46].

American Dog Owners Association v. Yakima (1991), 13 Wn.2d 213; 777 P.2d 1046, refd to. [para. 46].

Colorado Dog Fanciers Inc. v. Denver (City and County) (1991), 820 P.2d 644 (Colo.), refd to. [para. 46].

American Dog Owners Association v. Des Moines (1991), 469 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa), refd to. [para. 46].

Greenwood v. North Salt Lake (1991), 817 P.2d 816 (Utah), refd to. [para. 46].

Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 865; 349 N.R. 1; 212 O.A.C. 338, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Downey and Reynolds, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10; 136 N.R. 266; 125 A.R. 342; 14 W.A.C. 342, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D-16, sect. 1(1) [para. 8]; sect. 1(2) [para. 9]; sect. 19 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Clayton C. Ruby and Breese Davies, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal;

Robert E. Charney, Michael T. Doi and S. Zachary Green, for the respondent/appellant, by way of cross-appeal.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on September 15 and 16, 2008, before Laskin, Sharpe and Cronk, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Sharpe, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court which was released on October 24, 2008.