THE COURT is the online resource for debate & data about the Supreme Court of Canada.*

No More Puppy Love in R. v Huggins, 2010 ONCA 746

The Ontario Court of Appeal has released its judgement in R. v. Huggins, 2010 ONCA 746, a hotly-contended case surrounding a notorious dogfight.  In a decision that will be an extreme disappointment to dog-lovers everywhere, the Court ordered that “Ginger” the pit bull be put down immediately.

A Walk in the Park Turns Into a Dog Owner’s Nightmare

In 2005, Ginger and her owner, Mr. Huggins, went for a walk in a Toronto park when they happened upon another (non-pit bull) dog, Buddy, and his owner Jody MacDonald.  The two dogs got into a fight, and although it is unclear as to which dog instigated the altercation, during the course of the fight, Ginger seriously injured Buddy and also inflicted wounds on Ms. MacDonald.  Mr. Huggins was charged under s. 5.1 of the Dog Owners Liability Act, RSO 1990, c D-16 which reads:

The owner of a dog shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent it from,

(a) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal; or

(b) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.

Additionally, the Crown applied under s. 4(8) of the Act that Ginger be destroyed.  The section reads:

When, in a proceeding under this section, the court finds that the dog is a pit bull and has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal, or has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, the court shall make an order under clause (3)(a).

Clause (3)(a) reads:

If, in a proceeding under subsection (1), the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, and the court is satisfied that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, the court may order,

(a) that the dog be destroyed in the manner specified in the order; or

Section 4 (3)(a) allows a court to order the destruction of a dog if that dog has bitten or attacked a person.  Note that in this section the language is permissive, as this section deals with dogs of all breeds.  However, s. 4(8) seems to mandate an order to be made under clause 3(a).  It is this issue that forms the basis of the case at hand.

A summary conviction judge acquitted Mr. Huggins but granted the order for the destruction of Ginger.  The order was appealed to Hogan J. of the Ontario Court of Justice, who set aside the order for Ginger’s destruction.  Before the Ontario Court of Appeal, the primary issue was whether the summary conviction judge erred in law in interpreting s. 4(8) of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act.

This Dog’s Bite Is Far Worse Than Its Bark

The case is interesting since the statutory interpretation under s. 4(8) requires the court to return to s. 3(a) (see above).  On summary conviction, the judge outlined two possible statutory approaches.

  1. That the court may make an order after considering whether it is “necessary for the protection of the public” (a phrase found in s. 3(a)) or,
  2. That if the dog is a pit bull and has bitten another animal or person, the destruction order must be made.

Hogan J. opted to follow the first method of interpretation, reasoning that if the legislature had intended for all pit bulls behaving in this manner to be destroyed, the legislation would have simply said so instead of referring one back to s. 3(a).  Blair J.A., writing for an unanimous Court, disagreed.

The Legislative Purpose Was To Eliminate Pit Bulls

The Court used a purposive approach to justify the destruction order.  Referencing a seminal case on interpretation, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v Rex, [2002] 2 SCR 559, Blair J.A. reiterated the principle that the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and with the intention of the legislature.

Bill 132 introduced the 2005 amendments to the Act with the express intention of eliminating the dog breed from the province.  Since the Act was found constitutional (Cochrane v Ontario (AG) (2008), 92 OR (3d) 321 (CA)), Blair J.A. held that the legislative intention of providing a separate clause for the destruction of pit bulls specifically was to ensure the elimination of dangerous pit bulls.

A “Refer-back” Reference Also Must Consider Legislative Intention

The Court then addressed the appeal judge’s finding that, since the legislation referred back to s. 3(a), the destruction order was permissive, not mandatory. Blair J.A. disposed of this reasoning by stating the “pit bull section” (s. 4(8)) would be superfluous and unnecessary, as pit bulls would then simply fall into the same category as all other dog breeds under s. 3(a).

A Bite is a Bite is a Bite?

Finally, it was also contended that the noscitur a sociis rule should apply to support the appeal judge’s interpretation of the statute.  The rule means that, where words that are susceptible of analogous meaning are used together, their meaning is influenced by the words with which they are associated.   While it is not clear from the written reasons, it seems as if Mr. Huggins’ argument contends that a bite must be “aggressive” since the word “bite” is, in the Act, associated with “attacked” and “menace.”  Blair J.A. was not convinced by this argument, holding that the legislature did not contemplate (or worry about!) a debate over whether a dog’s bite was aggressive, playful, done in self-protection or any other reason.  Any bite is enough.

It breaks my heart to know that an animal will die. However, begrudgingly, I am forced to agree with both the decision and remedy.

It was Mr. Huggins’ responsibility to control and ensure the dog did not injure anyone in the park.  While I recognize that humans are imperfect, the consequences of aggressive and violent dogs are also serious and far-reaching.  Without delving into an animal behaviour analysis, a full-grown adult dog who shows vicious tendencies is incapable of rehabilitation in the way a human could be.  Following this, the full responsibility of preventing future harm would (in this case) fall entirely on Mr. Huggins, who has once already shown he is incapable of controlling Ginger.  It is simply too dangerous for a potential future victim to rely on a dog owner’s reassurances the dog will not be a threat again.  So, let this decision stand as a warning to all dog owners to exercise due care in ensuring their dogs behave in public places.

[filed: R. v. Huggins (2010)]

5 Responses to “No More Puppy Love in R. v Huggins, 2010 ONCA 746”

  1.               Marion Irving

     

    When one dog attacks another it is sometimes impossible to completely stop them right away and it does not mean that the owner does not have control of the dog. I have seen many small dogs who run at another dog ( off leash ) and their owner cannot even catch them. It takes intense training to make two dogs ignore each other when one or both want to fight.
    If Ginger was attacked I think it is ridiculous to expect her to sit there on command just because she is a pit bull. Anyone who works with dogs knows that the owner is usually responsible for the behavior of their dog.Why does the other dog get a free ride when according to the story he or she attacked Ginger. If you have a large dog you should have taken the dog to obedience classes to socialize them . My dog has flattened another dog who attacked him . Pit Bulls have been given a bad deal because of most of the owners. Maybe instead of spending so much time on a law that makes no provisions for SELF-DEFENCE by an animal the people behind that law should have done some more homework and educated the owners and the public. So if I provoke or tease or hit a pit bull in Ontario and that dog bites me I understand that the dog will be put down? Or if my dog attacks, teases or bites a pit bull –although it was my dog who initiated the attack the victim will be put down shows me that your law is a STUPID as the day is long.
    Maybe we should have some more laws that protect the attacker. God forbid that the dog who was attacked should have any rights.
    It amazes me that humans spend so much time trying to eliminate a species when they should be spending the time weeding the owners who make the aggressive animals . I am sure glad that I do not live in Ontario not just for this law but because a few years ago your premier said he did not have time on his agenda to address the bill to bring in new laws for animal abuse.
    I hope that Ginger can go to Calgary and that some judge will realize that the victim has rights and if it was me I would be looking for damages from the other owner if his dog attacked . Maybe some Lawyer will fight this case for no fee.
    I can also see why animals have more common sense that man will ever have because animals cannot talk.

  2.               EL

     

    Proper socialization is the key and tons of exercise!!!
    But w this law its hard for pitbull owners to do this giving the the media already gave them a bad reputation!!

    muzzling is not gon help!!

    Lets get rid of this ban!!! Its not benefitting anyone!!!
    any dogs can bite or attack!!!

  3.               Robyn

     

    Read the cases of ‘Brindi’, in Nova Scotia.

  4.               Ell

     

    While I grudgingly admit that the interpretation of the law is correct, it really doesn’t change the fact that the law was made to pander to fear mongerers. If anyone honestly thinks that a breed of dog is any significant danger to society, they are too easily distracted. The number of people seriously injured by any dog breed in a year is pretty small, and you have a much better chance of being killed by lightning than being killed by a pit bull.

    I also must point out that this:
    “While I recognize that humans are imperfect, the consequences of aggressive and violent dogs are also serious and far-reaching. Without delving into an animal behaviour analysis, a full-grown adult dog who shows vicious tendencies is incapable of rehabilitation in the way a human could be”

    is factually incorrect. A dog that gets into a fight in the park is hardly an irredeemable sociopathic monster. The vast majority of dogs that bite can, in fact, be rehabilitated, and the vast majority of dogs that bite, are biting in a situation like outlined above – two dogs get in a fight, and someone’s hand or arm gets bitten while separating them. That doesn’t require in depth rehabilitation, it requires a little more socialization. Having rescued and rehabilitated dogs of all breeds – including pit bulls and rotties – pit bulls are no harder to train or control than any other dog of comparative size and strength. And keep in mind that they are not extremely large dogs. There are lots of bigger and stronger dogs with more pressure per inch in a bite (e.g. German Shepherds).

    In any event there are many other alternatives for dogs that aren’t available to humans – while you can’t exactly force a human to undertake to wear handcuffs whenever they go outside, you can certainly order a human to muzzle her dog.

  5.               An Ontario Voter

     

    Help put a stop to this Insanity.
    http://www.stopcanineprofiling.com/

    Learn the facts and ask your MPP if they will support Hershey`s Bill
    http://supporthersheysbill.com/

    Make your vote count on Oct 6th 2011

    BTW Ginger was muzzled and the other dog tore off the muzzle which was conveniently lost prior to trial and it was Mr Huggin`s mother who was walking Ginger.
    Buddy was off leash and not under control.
    How does a muzzled dog start s fight?

Leave a Response


Responses are moderated (see our response policy) and so may not appear on this site for 24 to 48 hours.


XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>