From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 2004:

The California State Court of Appeal on September 3 made
binding on all trial courts in California an August 25 ruling that a
homeowners’ association “no pets” rule may be overridden by a
resident’s documented need for a companion animal. The Court of
Appeal held that an animal need not have special skills or training
to be a therapeutic helper to the clinically depressed, and
reinstated an award of $18,000 in damages made in 2002 to Ed and
Jayne Elebiari by the California Fair Employment & Housing
Commission. Both clinically depressed, they adopted a shelter dog
in April 1999 at the recommendation of their therapists. The dog
helped them, but the Auburn Woods I Condominium Association obliged
them to give him to a friend in June 1999. The Elebiaris relapsed
into depression and relocated to Rochester, New York, where they
adopted another dog. The California Department of Fair Employment &
Housing sued the condo association on their behalf in February 2001.

Read more

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 2004:

TORONTO–Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant on October
26, 2004 introduced an amendment to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act
which would ban breeding, selling, and importing pit bull terriers
into the province.
The amendment also doubles to $10,000 the top fine and
provides a possible sentence of up to six months in jail for
possession of “any dangerous dog who bites, attacks, or otherwise
poses a menace to public safety.”
Explained Bryant, “Those who currently own pit bulls will be
able to keep their dogs. However, these dogs will have to be
muzzled and on leashes while in public, and spayed or neutered.
Municipalities can also add further restrictions.”
Kitchener banned pit bulls in 1997. “Since our ban,
Kitchener has sen a dramatic decline in the number of pit bull
attacks from 18 to about one per year,” mayor Carl Zehr told
Canadian Press.

Read more

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 2004:

COLUMBUS–The Ohio Supreme Court on September 22 ruled 4-3
that the part of the Ohio law requiring restraint of “dangerous and
vicious” dogs is unconstitutional because it does not allow the
owners to contest the “dangerous and vicious” designation before they
are criminally charged.
“We find it inherently unfair that a dog owner must defy the
statutory regulations and become a criminal defendant, thereby
risking going to jail and losing her property, in order to challenge
a dog warden’s unilateral decision to classify her property,” wrote
Justice Francis Sweeney for the majority.
Janice Cowan, 50, of Mogadore, argued that her German
shepherd and two of the dog’s mixed-breed offspring were unjustly
killed after the two mixed-breed dogs mauled neighbor Margaret
Maurer, on Maurer’s property. The dogs were chained, but the
chains apparently allowed them to range beyond Cowan’s property.
Cowan was subsequently convicted of four misdemeanors for failing to
properly confine the dogs. A three-judge panel from the Ohio 11th
District Court of Appeals rejected two of Cowan’s three claims of
unjust treatment, but agreed 2-1 that Portage County violated her
right of due process.

Read more