Four dogs with muzzles and colorful bandanas sitting on grass with their owners.

What is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)?

Breed-Specific Legislation (“BSL”) refers to laws that restrict, regulate, or ban certain dogs based solely on breed or perceived breed, rather than on a dog’s actual behaviour. These laws can include special licensing requirements, mandatory muzzling, ownership restrictions, or the complete prohibition of specific breeds. In many cases, BSL applies not only to purebred dogs, but also to mixed-breed dogs that merely resemble the targeted breeds.

In Ontario, the province-wide ban targets three recognized breeds: the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. However, the law goes much further. The Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) was amended to include the term “pit bull,” defined as any dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to those breeds. This vague definition allows mixed-breed dogs with similar features to be considered banned, even when there is no proof of their lineage. As a result, thousands of family pets have been affected under this clause.

The amendments to DOLA increased penalties for dog owners, doubling the maximum fine to $10,000 and allowing for jail sentences of up to six months. These penalties can be applied even when a dog has never shown aggression.

There is no reliable scientific method to determine the breed ancestry of a mixed-breed dog based solely on appearance. Despite this, the law places a reverse onus on the owner, meaning the owner must prove in court that their dog is not a banned breed or is not “substantially similar” to one. This often requires expensive legal proceedings that many families cannot afford, leaving owners with little choice but to give up a beloved pet that has done nothing wrong.

Under Breed-Specific Legislation, responsible dog owners find themselves treated as if they have committed an offence simply because of the way their dog looks. People moving to Ontario from another province or country may be forced to surrender their dog. Travelers passing through Ontario risk having their pet seized. Military personnel transferred to Ontario postings may be required to leave their dog behind. These consequences affect law-abiding families, not dangerous individuals.

Breed-Specific Legislation is driven more by fear and misunderstanding than by evidence. Research from veterinary, medical, and animal behaviour experts has repeatedly shown that banning breeds does not improve public safety. Dog bites are influenced by many factors, including irresponsible ownership, lack of education, and failure to enforce existing laws. Focusing on breed alone ignores these causes and creates a false sense of security.

Public safety is best achieved through education, responsible ownership, and behaviour-based laws — not by banning dogs based on appearance.

On October 15, 2004, Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, called a press conference and announced Breed Specific Legislation (“BSL”) was coming to the Province of Ontario. "Pit bulls - BANNED - BANNED - We are banning pit bulls in the province of Ontario". Bryant went on; "I am convinced that pit bulls are ticking time bombs. I am convinced that they are inherently dangerous animals....You cannot have these animals walking the streets, the fields, or the family rooms of Ontario".

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90d16

Despite the strong rhetoric used by government every credible canine organization along with 43 out of the 44 expert witnesses who testified against the breed ban during the Bill 132 hearings spoke against the introduction of breed-specific legislation. Nevertheless the Liberal Party of Ontario, holding a majority government at the time, voted unanimously in favour of the ban on August 29, 2005.

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-38/session-1/bill-132/

Ontario became the largest geographical jurisdiction in the world to enact such legislation. Dogs falling under the legislation that were born prior to November 27, 2005 were permitted to live only under strict conditions placed upon both the dog and its owner. Dogs born after November 27, 2005 were considered illegal and subject to seizure, destruction, transfer to a research facility or removal from the province.

In 2004, a group of 5 Canadian dog organizations came together to form the Banned Aid Coalition. Foreseeing what was to come, the coalition retained lawyer Clayton Ruby to launch a court challenge to defeat Bill 132. The case, Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2007 Can LII 9231 (ON SC), was heard on May 15, 16 & 18, 2006.

On March 23, 2007, Madam Justice Herman ruled that the term “pit bull terrier” was unconstitutionally vague. She also found that allowing the government to introduce a veterinarian’s certificate as proof that a dog fell within the banned category infringed on the right to a fair trial and could result in arbitrary application of the law.

In 2008, both parties appealed portions of the decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2008 ONCA 718, the Court of Appeal overturned key parts of the lower court ruling. The court held that the legislature had acted on a reasonable apprehension of harm, that the definition of “pit bull” was sufficiently precise when read in context, and that the use of a veterinarian’s certificate placed only a tactical burden on the defendant, not an unconstitutional evidentiary burden.

Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2008 ONCA 718 (CanLII).

A further appeal on June 11, 2009 to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused, thus upholding Ontario’s breed ban.

On November 18, 2009, MPP Cheri DiNovo introduced Bill 222, a Private Member’s Bill to repeal the breed-specific provisions of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. The bill passed first reading but died when Premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the Legislature on March 4, 2010.

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-39/session-1/bill-222,

On May 10, 2010, MPP Cheri DiNovo introduced Bill 60, another Private Member’s Bill seeking to repeal the breed-specific portions of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. Bill 60 passed first reading but did not proceed further before the Legislature dissolved for the October 6, 2011 provincial election. The Liberals were re-elected but formed a minority government.

.https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-39/session-2/bill-60,a

On November 30, 2011, Hershey's Bill 16 was introduced as a tri-party Private Member’s Bill supported by Cheri DiNovo (NDP), Kim Craitor (Liberal), and Randy Hillier (Progressive Conservative). During committee hearings, all presentations supported removal of the breed ban. Bill 16 passed second reading on February 23, 2012 by a vote of 51 ayes to 25 nays. However, the Legislature was prorogued later that year, Premier McGuinty resigned, and Bill 16 died on the Order Paper. On January Kathleen Wynne became Premier of Ontario.

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-40/session-1/bill-16/debates,

On October 1, 2013, MPP Randy Hillier introduced Bill 112, another Private Member’s Bill to repeal the breed-specific provisions of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. On May 2, 2014 the Legislature was dissolved and an election called for June 12, 2014, and Bill 112 did not proceed. The June 12, 2014 election resulted in a majority Liberal government.

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-40/session-2/bill-112.

On October 6, 2016, MPP Cheri DiNovo introduced Bill 40, again seeking to remove the breed-specific portions of Ontario’s dog laws. Bill 40 passed first reading but did not advance before the Legislature dissolved for the June 7, 2018 provincial election. The 2018 election resulted in a Progressive Conservative majority government, the first since 2003. The Liberal Party was reduced to seven seats and lost official party status.

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-41/session-2/bill-40. Bill

On November 18, 2019, MPP Rick Nicholls, working with MPP David Piccini, introduced Bill 147, another Private Member’s Bill to repeal the breed-specific provisions of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act and the Animals for Research Act. Bill 147 passed first and second reading with a vote of 36 ayes to 12 nays. Bill 147 was referred to the Standing Committee on General Government on November 21, 2019. Despite advancing to committee, the bill was never scheduled for hearings during the 1 year, 9 months, and 13 days before the Legislature was prorogued on September 3, 2021.

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-147

WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

BSL does not improve public safety or prevent dog bites;
BSL ignores the plight of victims and potential victims of non-targeted dogs;
BSL is costly and wastes taxpayer dollars;
BSL wastes limited and valuable animal control resources;
BSL requires each and every dog to be identified as a breed which has been proven impossible to do accurately and objectively;
BSL does not hold irresponsible and reckless dog owners accountable for their actions;
BSL punishes responsible dog owners and targets their non-offending dogs;
Not a single credible expert canine welfare organization supports BSL;
There is NO scientific evidence to suggest any specific breed of dog is inherently more dangerous;
There is no such breed as a "pit bull". The umbrella term describes a multiple of different breeds of dogs and encompasses a multiple of mixed mutts;
For all the peer-reviewed studies done on BSL not a single study shows improvements to public safety.

Spotted puppy lying on black background.

GET INVOLVED! HOW YOU CAN HELP!

Contact Premier Doug Ford and demand Premier Ford keep his promise to remove the breed-specific language in the Ontario Dog Owners Liability. Demand a total review of the Ontario Dog Owners Liability Act.
Call, write & email your local MPP. Ask them to insist on a total review of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act and Animals for Research Act. Ask them about the cost of BSL to Ontario's taxpayers and if BSL has been shown to be an effect policy. Find out who your MPP is here.
Ask your federal MP why they have not reviewed anti-breed-specific policies in Canada? Over 100,000 Canadians have called for the federal government to do so. online petition.
Use this site. Tweet, email or share our pages or the individual links to social media and our Ontario MPP’s. Share the many resources, including and importantly, the worldwide scientific peer reviewed studies. The facts are clear. The research proves that education over discrimination improves public safety, not breed bans.

What is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)?

History of BSL in Ontario

WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

GET INVOLVED! HOW YOU CAN HELP!

This website uses cookies.