This person has two dogs. One is 1 ½ years old (a Jack Russell Terrier mix) and the other is a 4-month-old pup she describes as a hound cross. The hound cross was given to her by another couple who told her they could not keep the dog and couldn’t think of a better home for him.
The ACO asked if he could come in. She then invited him in, not suspecting any trouble since she had done nothing wrong. Her dogs are and have been always under her watchful eye, leashed on walks and they play with all the children who live in the apartment building. Once the ACO was in her apartment he asked her, “Have you ever heard of the ‘pit bull ban’?” She was quite shocked and answered, “Yes, I have heard of it, but it doesn’t apply to me or my dogs since I do not own pit bulls.” The ACO then asked her if he could take some pictures of her dogs. She agreed, thinking it was for a licensing infraction. He had also asked her if her dogs were licensed. The woman told me her dogs sat quietly while he snapped several pictures of them from several different angles. During this process, the woman’s children were becoming quite nervous and upset with the ACO’s tone. They started to ask if this man was going to take their dogs and began to cry. The ACO then told the children he was not going to take their dogs and asked the woman to come out to the hall to speak to him privately.
He told the dog owner out in the hall that "having this breed of dog is the same as possessing illegal drugs." He handed her his business card and a blank SPCA card with the words ”Surrender for Destruction" written on it.
He also gave her three pamphlets: the City Bylaw, the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) section on 'Pit Bull' Controls and the entire DOLA.
The dog owner was dumfounded. She didn't understand what was wrong.
He told her the dogs had to be destroyed. He made an appointment to come back the next day at the same time to collect the dogs if she hadn't already turned them in. He warned her to be sure the dogs were handed in or were there when he returned. He cautioned her not to think of moving them to a nearby town. "If they go anywhere, it has to be out of province."
When he returned the next day to carry out his task, she told him the dogs were gone.
"What?" he responded. "Where are they? Where are the dogs?"
"They're not here. If you have any paperwork, then charge me with something."
"Where are the dogs?"
"Sorry sir, they're not here."
He tried to get into her apartment to look around.
She told him to come back with a warrant, slammed the door and locked it.
It took one month for anyone to contact the woman again regarding this matter. However, several weeks ago, police knocked at her door to formally charge her with two counts of owning a prohibited dog under DOLA.
On August 29, 2005, against significant expert opposition, the Ontario Liberal government implemented Bill 132 (2005) to amend the existing Dog Owners' Liability Act. This document attempts to summarize the key changes to the act.
The law defines a "pit bull" as a pit bull terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, an American Pit Bull Terrier, or a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those dogs. If your dog appears to be in this category and your dog lived in Ontario on August 29, 2005, or was born in Ontario before November 27, 2005, you own a "restricted dog." Restricted dogs must be muzzled, leashed and sterilized. If your dog appears to be in this category and it was born in Ontario after November 26, 2005, or was brought into Ontario after August 29, 2005, your dog is illegal. It could be confiscated and destroyed and you could be fined up to $10,000 and sentenced to up to six months in jail.
I have kept in close contact with this woman. She feels very isolated and afraid for her dogs' lives, her children’s wellbeing (they have been in a state of fear since this all began) and is nervous about having been charged under provincial legislation, which carries a harsh penalty if found guilty. In further communication with her I've learned of several different points that have come to light since her initial visit from the ACO.
Apparently, there is a licensing push on at the apartment complex. Bylaw officers have been visiting the apartment buildings, selling license tags door-to-door. They are trying to boost licensing compliance, which is at about 10% across the province.
The dogs in question are mainly white, medium-small dogs which to me look like pariahs—I have pictures that I don't want to post here. They could be anything, but the Jack Russell mix description fits very well. The pup is too young at four months to be more than a white, short-haired pup with a longish snout and some black markings.