{"id":98,"date":"2007-05-22T05:43:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-22T13:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chicobandido.com\/blog\/?p=98"},"modified":"2007-05-22T05:43:00","modified_gmt":"2007-05-22T13:43:00","slug":"new-date-for-ontario-legal-remedy-june-28-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chicobandido.com\/blog\/2007\/05\/new-date-for-ontario-legal-remedy-june-28-2007\/","title":{"rendered":"New date for Ontario legal remedy: June 28, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The basic decision of the judge, as far as I understand it, is that the following parts of the law are unconstitutional: <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The phrase “pit bull includes”;<\/li>\n
  2. The phrase “pit bull terrier” as a definition of a restricted dog;<\/li>\n
  3. 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The full text of the judge’s decision is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Here is a plain English interpretation of what could happen, courtesy of the Fundamental Freedoms Project<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    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: <\/p>\n