[DryCreek]

I hate to be repetative but here's a reminder for all of you that can attend.

We are going back to court on June 28 @ 10:00 AM.
393 University Avenue in downtown Toronto.
Courtroom 904

Details here.....
http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/20...ay-june-28.html

Court protocols here....
http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_ar.../4/1932959.html

The arguments will be about how to implement the judge's decision on the challenge of DOLA. The judge must decide the best course of action now that the law has been substantially eroded.

If you cannot attend, please say a prayer for us.

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')

Thanks for all support during this battle against Ontario's BSL....

[Swan]

Best to all of you down there and I will be checking those links, think positive and be strong !!!!!!!!!!!

[DryCreek]

So, in a nutshell, this is where we stand.....in limbo......

No decision was made. Justice T. Herman will take however much time is needed to render a decision. It may take a few months.

There is a lot of information about the day in court at the following link.

http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/2007/06/judge-does-not-rule-on-remedy-for.html

The following quote explains where we stand at this time.

If the law gets sent back to the legislature, we have won, pending an appeal by the government. If the law gets changed to "pit bull means" or "pit bull includes only", or if the judge narrowly interprets the word "includes" to be exhaustive, then the law will still target the three purebred breeds and dogs that are substantially similar, so we will appeal. In the middle of all of this comes the election. We may have a decision before then (I would certainly hope), but it will be just before the election and I don't think the legislature will be doing any more work before the campaigning starts. So, if we win, it is likely that any action by the government would be postponed until after the election. Then the government, assuming that it's still the Liberals in power, can decide whether they want to appeal, rewrite the law to target pit bulls again, rewrite the law to target truly dangerous dogs, or shrug their shoulders and let the law die a natural death, leaving in place the original Dog Owners' Liability Act.

So the waiting begins.