Seizure of family pet brings new scrutiny to pit bull ban
Woodbridge man fighting DNA test that could lead to removal of dog under what some call an arbitrary provincial law
Tommy Chang was relieved when Vaughan Animal Services called to tell him his family’s one-year-old pet dog had been recovered after he slipped out of their Woodbridge home over Thanksgiving weekend.
The stuntman’s relief changed to alarm when the animal control officer told Chang the family’s beloved Dwaeji has the characteristics of dogs banned in Ontario, and that a DNA test would be conducted to determine its pedigree.
“I said, what? He’s not a pit bull; he’s an American bully,” Chang said, recalling the conversation.
The Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) “was created to protect the community against biting dogs,” he said, “not for dogs like this — he’s a mush. He’s incapable of hurting anybody.”
Depending on the DNA results, Chang was told Dwaeji could be relocated to a foster home in another province, likely Quebec. But not without a fight.
Chang has retained defence lawyer Leo Kinahan, who has put Vaughan officials on notice that “all avenues will be pursued” and the dispute may be headed for the courts.
Sixteen years after Ontario amended the law to prohibit the breeding and importing of pit bulls, Chang’s battle with local authorities about whether his pet is, in fact, banned shines a light once again on the breedspecific legislation. It has always been controversial, with opponents considering it discriminatory and not evenly enforced throughout the province. (A rally is being held at Queen’s Park this Saturday as part of an awareness day against breed-specific legislation.)
The law states that no owner should “possess or harbour” a pit bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, or “a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar” to those banned animals.
Asking officials to judge whether a dog is a pit bull based on its appearance makes enforcement next to impossible, said Rebeka Breder, a B.C.based animal rights lawyer. She added that DNA testing is also often inconclusive. “Pit bulls by definition are a mixed breed … and so the confusion is when you have Staffordshire bull terrier mixed with a bulldog, does that make the dog a pit bull?” Some would say yes, others no; it’s a mixed breed, Breder said.
Ontario is the only province with a sweeping breed-specific ban. Elsewhere, municipalities such as Calgary and Vancouver have repealed breed-specific bylaws, citing the cost of enforcement and complaints from the public, Breder said.
Rebecca Ledger, a B.C.-based animal behaviour and law expert, said studies suggest even professionals have difficulty identifying a dog’s mix, and while a DNA test may provide some information, it’s not 100 per cent reliable.
In any case, she said, “if it’s a really nice, friendly dog that isn’t a risk to people, why does it matter?”
She added that research suggests breed-specific bans don’t lead to a decrease in dog bites, noting that a Canadian study found the most fatal attacks were by husky-type dogs, an unregulated breed.
Nevertheless, Ledger has also worked with municipalities that have seized dogs that caused serious injuries to people or other animals, and in Vancouver, for example, “the majority are pit bull-type dogs,” linked to “a certain demographic of owner who use the dog to be protected.”
“There’s lots of arguments on all sides,” she said.
Ontario’s pit bull ban was controversially introduced by the then Liberal government in 2005 following a series of highprofile attacks, including a near-fatal case in which a Toronto man was badly mauled by two dogs he was walking for a friend. Then attorney general Michael Bryant championed the change, arguing in 2004 that “some animals amount to nothing less than dangerous weapons.”
The law, which immediately provoked backlash from dog owners who complained it was too sweeping and would affect any dog that looks like a pit bull, was later upheld in court following a constitutional challenge. “Dog ownership is not a right,” Justice Thea Herman said in 2007, finding that although the evidence of danger posed by pit bulls was inconclusive, legislators were entitled to err on the side of safety.
The provincial Tories said they were considering repealing the ban as recently as 2019.
Deanna Wheeler is confident she’s on the right side of the debate. She lost her dogs, Nove and Dexter, last March after they wandered off from her home in West Grey Township south of Owen Sound. A “Good Samaritan” took them to a vet clinic in the town of Durham, where animal control officers advised they were pit bulls and illegal in Ontario.
Wheeler said she provided proof of pedigree and microchipping information but was told a DNA test was needed to prove the dogs’ breed. She said township-ordered test confirmed the dogs as purebred American bully, but the town would not release them. They were relocated to a foster home in Quebec last June.
She’s hired Owen Sound paralegal Carrie Bertrand, who has initiated a small-claims court action against the Municipality of West Grey for $35,000 and the return of Wheeler’s personal property — her dogs.
In an email, Bertrand wrote they are seeking “substantial damages due to the emotional and psychological trauma that her entire family has endured and continues to endure.” The municipality has hired counsel and a statement of defence is expected soon, she said.
Back in Vaughan, Chang said he had little to no knowledge about the DOLA when he purchased Dwaeji last year from a Toronto breeder as a companion dog for this wife; three sons, ages 20, 18 and nine; and the family’s teacup Pomeranian, Kimchi.
He did some research, and decided on an American bully, in part because “they don’t have an ounce of aggression in them, they may look the part, strong and powerful, but are small and muscular.” It “didn’t cross his mind it could be a pit bull.”
Named after the Korean word for “piggy,” Dwaeji has spent the past year cheering up the family during the pandemic, sleeping on family members’ beds and charming everyone he meets on the streets, Chang said.
“There’s so much love and affection in him, and that’s the way he was from the moment we got him,” he said, adding his family is extremely distressed by what has occurred to “their family member.”
In his letter sent last week to elected and non-elected officials in Vaughan, Kinahan suggests the animal control officer should not have seized Dwaeji without a warrant based only on a “subjective belief” that the dog’s appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of banned dogs.
“It is acknowledged that Blu (Dwaeji’s other name) has 4 legs, a tail and a round head and is a dog,” Kinahan wrote. “However, that is pretty much where the similarities end.”
He added if it turns out the seizure was legal, he wants to know what authority Vaughan Animal Control has to conduct DNA testing. He argued there is no authority to “undertake such drastic measures,” and also demanded to know the name of the testing facilities — some don’t even test for American bully, meaning any result could be “incorrect and inconclusive.”
“I am of the hope that common sense will prevail,” Kinahan wrote.
“This is a one-year-old puppy who basically thinks he is human and plays with children and a Pomeranian; it is not Cujo roaming the streets of Vaughan, foaming at the mouth, looking for someone to chow down on.”
The City of Vaughan, in an email to the Star sent Friday, said the matter is under investigation and cannot be commented on at this time. The statement added: “Mayor (Maurizio) Bevilacqua and members of council know that a family pet is at the heart of every family.”
As well, “several members of council are also pet owners and are sympathetic to the concerns of dog owners, in particular.”
“This is a one-year-old puppy who basically thinks he is human and plays with children and a Pomeranian; it is not Cujo roaming the streets of Vaughan.”
LEO KINAHAN DEFENCE LAWYER