The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's ban on pit bulls under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, arguing the law was overbroad and vague under s. 7 of the Charter, and that a provision allowing a veterinarian's certificate as proof of breed violated the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d).
The application judge upheld the ban but struck down parts of the definition and the certificate provision.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the Attorney General's cross-appeal, restoring the struck provisions.
The Court held the ban was not grossly disproportionate to the risk posed by pit bulls, the definition was not unconstitutionally vague, and the certificate provision did not create a mandatory presumption of guilt.