As a result of increasing concern about dog attacks the federal parliament has decided to take action and pass a statute (theProtecting the Public Against Dog Attacks Act) that says the following in sections 1 and 2:

Section 1: While off the owner's property, a muzzle must be securely placed on the nose of any Pitbull, Rottweiler, Doberman or any other dog.

Section 2: While off the owner's property, a dog must always be on a leash.

Predictably, there are many dog owners who are unhappy about this law and are determined to challenge it. In particular there have been two recent incidents in which a dog owner has allegedly violated the law and has been charged:

(a)In the first incident the owner of a Chihauhua puppy (a puppy!) was caught walking his dog in a park with no muzzle and was charged with not having a muzzle on his dog.

(b)In the second incident, the owner of a Pitbull was walking his dog in a park and had a muzzle on the dog, but he had the dog on a leash that consisted of a piece of thread. Consequently, he was charged with not having his dog on a leash.

Other dog owners have decided to challenge this new dog law in court. They are going to BC Supreme Court and they are relying upon an older (1955) BC Court of Appeal decision in which the court ruled that there was a common law right for dog owners to have their dogs running loose and without muzzles.

NOTE: A Chihuahua is a very small dog - even when fully grown it is often smaller than a cat, so a puppy is very small. A muzzle is something put over a dog's nose/mouth so it cannot open its mouth to bit people.

Question:

Is the owner of the Chihuahua puppy guilty of violating section 1 of theProtecting the Public Against Dog Attacks Act?