4 (1) A proceeding may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that, (a) the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal; (b) the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals; or (c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from, (i) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal, or (ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (6). Same (1.1) A proceeding may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against a person if it is alleged that the person contravened a provision of this Act or the regulations or a court order made under this Act.  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (6). Nature of proceeding (1.2) Part IX of the Provincial Offences Act applies to a proceeding under this section.  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (6). Standard of proof (1.3) Findings of fact in a proceeding under this section shall be made on the balance of probabilities.  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (6). Interim order (2) When a proceeding has been commenced under subsection (1) or (1.1), the Ontario Court of Justice may, pending a determination of whether an order should be made under subsection (3) or pending an appeal of such an order, make an interim order requiring the owner to take measures specified in the interim order for the more effective control of the dog.  2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (7). Final order (3) 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 (b) that the owner of the dog take the measures specified in the order for the more effective control of the dog or for purposes of public safety.  2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (8, 9). Examples, measures for more effective control (4) Some examples of measures that may be ordered under subsection (2) or clause (3) (b) are: 1. Confining the dog to its owner’s property. 2. Restraining the dog by means of a leash. 3. Restraining the dog by means of a muzzle. 4. Posting warning signs.  2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (10). Automatic restraint order (5) If a dog whose destruction has been ordered under clause (3) (a) is not taken into custody immediately, the owner shall restrain the dog by means of a leash and muzzle and such other means as the court may order until the dog is taken into custody.  2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (11). Considerations (6) Except as provided by subsections (8) and (9), in exercising its powers to make an order under subsection (3), the court may take into consideration the following circumstances: 1. The dog’s past and present temperament and behaviour. 2. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack. 3. Unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog’s action. 4. The improbability that a similar attack will be repeated. 5. The dog’s physical potential for inflicting harm. 6. Precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future. 7. Any other circumstances that the court considers to be relevant.  2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (12). Sterilization requirement (7) The owner of a dog that is subject to an order under clause (3) (b) shall ensure that the dog is neutered or spayed, as the case may be, within 30 days of the making of the order or, if the court specifies a different time period, within the time period specified by the court.  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (13). Mandatory order under cl. (3) (a) (8) 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).  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (13). Same (9) When, in a proceeding under this section, the court finds that the owner of a pit bull contravened a provision of this Act or the regulations relating to pit bulls or contravened a court order relating to one or more pit bulls, the court shall make an order under clause 3 (a).  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (13). Onus of proof, pit bulls (10) If it is alleged in any proceeding under this section that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog.  2005, c. 2, s. 1 (13). Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) 2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6 - 06/12/2000 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (6-13)
- 29/08/2005