Lawyers for both sides will be back in front of the judge on June 28, 2007.
When I find out time and location, I will post it here.
The basic decision of the judge, as far as I understand it, is that the following parts of the law are unconstitutional:
- The phrase “pit bull includes”;
- The phrase “pit bull terrier” as a definition of a restricted dog;
- The use of only a document from a veterinarian as proof of breed, thus placing onto the defendant the burden of the costs of cross-examination and calling of experts to refute the document.
The full text of the judge’s decision is here.
Here is a plain English interpretation of what could happen, courtesy of the Fundamental Freedoms Project:
The Charter is a part of Canada’s Constitution, and is included in the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 gives courts the power to say that a law that violates the Charter is not valid. You can ask a court to make such a declaration. When applying section 52, a court might:
- strike out the part of the law that violates the Charter
- interpret a law narrowly so that it fits Charter rights
- ‘read in’ features to the law so that it meets Charter requirements
- declare that you are not covered by the law that violates your Charter rights (a ‘constitutional exemption’)