HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 13, 2003· AGENDA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2003
Committee of the Whole Meeting
Agenda
Monday, January 13, 2002
Chair: Councillor Pickles
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of December 9, 2002
(11)
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
MAYOR'S REPORT MO 01-03
GTAA PICKERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
STATUS UPDATE 2
PAGE
1-5
CLERK'S REPORT CL 44-02
MUZZLING AND LEASHING OF DOGS
6-18
CLERK'S REPORT CL 42-02
APPOINTMENT TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT
1822 WHITES ROAD AND 1865 AND 1867 KINGSTON ROAD
19-23
CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
CLERK'S REPORT CL 43-02
NOMINATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
DURHAM ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
24-44
(IV) OTHER BUSINESS
(V) ADJOURNMENT
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Council receive for information, Report to Council MO 01-03 providing a
status update on the GTAAs Pickering Advisory Committee.
PICKERING
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: MO 01-03
Date: December 27, 2002
From: Wayne Arthurs
Mayor
Subject:
GTAA Pickering Advisory Committee
Status Update 2
Recommendation:
That Council receive for information. Report to Council MO 01-03 providing a
status update on the GTAA's Pickering Advisory Committee.
Executive Summary:
The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) established a "Pickering ,Advisory
Committee" early in 2002 to provide advice on issues related to the GTAA s interim
planning process for the federal lands in Pickering, Markham and Uxbridge. A status
update on this Committee was provided to Council in September 2002. This Report
provides Council with a further status update on the work of the Committee.
Financial Implications: Not applicable
Background:
In early September 2002, I provided Council with a status update on the Pickering
Advisory Committee (PAC). of the GTAA. Since that update, the PAC has met three
more times: 8th, and November 20th, 2002. The purpose of
September 1 October 24th,
this Report is to update Council on these meetings.
At the September meeting, the GTAA released a "Financial Assessment Analysis"
(FAA) of the Pickering Lands. A copy of the FAA was forwarded to all members of
Council following the meeting, along with a memorandum from the Division Head,
Corporate Projects & Policy to the Chief Administrative Officer outlining the key findings
of the Analysis. A copy of the Division Head's rnemorandum to the CAO is attached for
your information (see Attachment No. 1 to this Report).
Report MO 01-03 Date:
Subject: GTAA Pickering Advisory Committee - Status Update 2
December 27, 2002
Page 2
I
At the October PAC meeting, the GTAA provided a verbal report on the various studies
currently being conducting, including a Runway Siting Study, a Socio-Economic
Baseline Study and a Groundside Transportation Study. The GTAA also gave an
informative presentation on the master planning process that it expects to complete in
2003. I have asked representatives of the GTAA to attend our Committee of the Whole
meeting on January 13th to provide all Members of Council with an overview of the
master planning process.
At the November meeting, the GTAA reported on the public information sessions it held
over the past few months, and provided PAC members with an outline of the general
policies, regulations and governmental responsibilities for planning in the vicinity of
airports, particularly in relation to airport operations, safety and noise impacts.
Meetings of the Pickering Advisory Committee will continue throughout 2003, and I will
keep Council advised on a regular bas~s.
Attachment
Memorandum from Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy to Chief
Administrative Officer on the GTAA's Financial Assessment Analysis
Submitted By:
Wayne Arthurs
Mayor
TM:
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MEMORANDUM
September 19, 2002
To: T.J. Quinn
Chief Administrative Officer
From: T.E. Melymuk
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
Subject:
GTAA Interim Planning Process
- Release of "Financial Assessment Analysis"
- File: IG 2100
At yesterday's GTAA's meeting of the Pickering Advisory Committee (PAC), the
GTAA released a "Financial Assessment Analysis" (FAA) for a possible future
airport in Pickering. The Mayor was also in attendance at the meeting, and also
received a copy of the Analysis.
The FAA was completed by the GTAA to determine whether there is a potential
business case for the development of an airport in Pickering. The GTAA wanted
to have this information before beginning detaited planning for the airport.
The Analysis was released for information and discussion. PAC members were
asked to review the Analysis and advise the GTAA of any questions or
comments they may have. so that these can be discussed at the next PAC
meeting in October. In addition to releasing the Analysis to PAC. the GTAA
intends to formally submit the document to each of the affected municipalities,
presumably through the Clerks Office. The GTAA will also be making the
Analysis available to the public ahead of the public meetings that they plan to
hold in October.
The GTAA emphasized that the Report is a "high-level" analysis. Detailed review
and analysis will continue over the next few years through the preparation of a
Master Plan for the airport (which would beg~n in 2003 and take about one year
to complete), and as part of the required Environmental Assessment process
(which would commence in 2004 and take about 3 years to complete). Issues
and questions raised at this time will be considered by the GTAA and dealt with
as the process continues.
A copy of the FAA is attached for your information. In effect, it confirms there is
a business case for the development of an airport in Picketing. Some of the key
findings of the Analysis are outlined below:
The potential closure of one or more GTA reliever airports (such as
Buttonville) will require a reallocation of general aviation service to
a new facility. The Analysis assumes general aviation service
in Pickering to commence in 2012.
Three scenarios were developed for the Analysis (a ';Spill"
scenario, an "Air Services" scenario, and a "Travel Propensity"
scenario). Commencement dates for commercial airport service in
Pickering vary by scenario.
Under the Spill scenario (wherein passengers are diverted to
Pickering and Hamilton, once Pearson reaches its capacity of 50-
million annual passengers), commercial service at Pickering
would commence in 2019. By 2032 there would be 9.7-million
annual passengers.
Under the Air Services scenario (wherein the demand at
Pickerin9 is based on airline scheduling needs), commercial
service at Picketing would commence in 2015. By 2032 there
would be 7.3-million annual passengers.
Under the Traffic Propensity scenario (wherein Pickering~s
demand is related to projected population and employment growth
rates), commercial service at Pickering would also commence
in 20'15 By 2032 there would be 4-million annual passengers.
The FAA also ~resents information for each scenano on facility requirements:
capital, operating and maintenance costs: and sources of funding. For each
scenario, it was concluded that an airport on the Pickering lands would be a
feasible project and could be funded from usual sources available to the GTAA.
I will keep you advised as further information becomes available on this issue.
TM:
T. E. Melymuk
i ',alrport~business case doc
PICKKRING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Clerk's Report CL 44-02 regarding the muzzling and leashing of dogs be
received.
That the draft by-law to amend By-law Number 5728/00 (Cat and Dog By-law) to
provide for the mandatory muzzling and leashing of a dog that has bitten a
person or domestic animal be enacted.
PICKERING
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: CL 44-02
Date: December 27, 2002
From:
Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
Recommendation:
1. That Clerk's Report CL 44-02 regarding the muzzling and leashing of dogs be
received.
2. That the draft by-law to amend By-law Number 5728/00 (Cat and Dog By-law) to
provide for the mandatory muzzling and leashing of a dog that has bitten a
person or domestic animal be enacted.
Executive Summary:
At its regular meeting of November 4, 2002, Council passed a resolution directing that
the Cat and Dog By-law be amended to state that where a dog has bitten a person or
domestic animal, the Animal Control and Pound Supervisor shall order the dog to be
muzzled and leashed for a period of time to be determined by the Supervisor. The
resolution goes on to request that the Supervisor immediately inform the Clerk of all
incidents involving a dog bite in order for the City to initiate proceedings against the
owner of the dog under the Dog Owners' Liability Act where such proceedings are
deemed in the best interest and safety of the community.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable
Background:
Please be advised that Council passed the following resolution at its regular meeting of
November 4, 2002'
Report CL 44-02
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
Date:
December 27, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS an incident occurred in the City of Pickering on October 10,
2002 wherein a child was bitten so severely by a neighbour's dog that the
child was taken to the hospital emergency department for treatment; and
WHEREAS the incident took place on a public road and the child did not
provoke the dog in any way; and
WHEREAS Section 9(1) of City of Pickering By-law Number 5728/00 (Cat &
Dog By-law) states:
Where a dog has bitten a person or domestic animal, the animal
control and pound supervisor may, at his or her discretion, order the
dog to be muzzled or leashed or both, for a period of time to be
determined by the animal control and pound supervisor and the
owner of the dog shall comply therewith.
WHEREAS the Supervisor, Animal Services Centre determined that it was
not necessary to order the dog that was involved in the October 10th
incident to be muzzled; and
WHEREAS the only other alternative left to the Mother of the child that
was bitten to ensure the safety of her child was to make a civil application
under the Dog Owners' Liability Act to have the offending dog destroyed;
and
WHEREAS Section 4(1) of the Dog Owners' Liability Act states that "If it is
alleged that a dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal, a
proceeding may be commenced against its owner .... ";and
WHEREAS a proceeding under Section 4(1) of the Dog Owners' Liability
Act may be made by the municipality in addition to the person that was
attacked by the dog or other interested party; and
WHEREAS it is the responsibility of the municipality and its agent being
the PAW Animal Services Centre to ensure the safety of its residents
through aggressive enforcement and application of its by-laws;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering
hereby AMMENDS Section 9(1) of City of Pickering By-law Number
5728/00 (Cat & Dog By-law) to read:
Where a dog has bitten a person or domestic animal, the animal
control and pound supervisor shall order the dog to be muzzled and
leashed for a period of time to be determined by the animal control
Report CL 44-02
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
Date:
December27,2002
Page 3
and pound supervisor. And such determination shall include a
period of quarantine as required in consultation with the Durham
Regional Health Department. And the owner of the dog shall comply
therewith.
FURTHER THAT such muzzling and leashing order remain in effect until
the owner of the dog can prove definitively that they have effective control
of the dog or until a decision is made by the PAW Joint Animal Services
Committee in the event that the owner of the dog appeals the muzzling
and/or leashing order; and
FURTHER THAT the Supervisor, Animal Services Centre shall immediately
inform the Clerk of the City of Pickering of all incidents involving a dog
bite in order for the City to initiate proceedings against the owner of the
dog under the Dog Owners' Liability Act where such proceedings are
deemed in the best interest and safety of the community.
A copy of this resolution was immediately forwarded to the Town of Whitby with the
request that Pickering Council's decision with respect to the muzzling and leashing of
dogs that have bitten a person or domestic animal be respected pending an
amendment being made to the City's Cat and Dog By-law to implement the resolution.
As a result of the resolution being passed, a Special Meeting of the PAW Joint Animal
Services Committee was called to discuss the resolution and the implications it would
have because the City of Pickering was requesting a higher level of service with
respect to dog bite incidents than was being offered in the Towns of Ajax and Whitby,
Attached to this Report is a copy of PAW Treasurer's Report 4-02 regarding Dog Biting
that the PAW Joint Animal Services Committee considered at a Special Meeting held
on December 10, 2002. (Copies of the attachments to the PAW Treasurer's Report are
not included because they identify specific people and law enforcement issues.) Also
attached is a copy of the Minutes of the Special Meeting held by the PAW Joint Animal
Services Committee.
It is important to note that the following points were made at the Special PAW Joint
Animal Services Committee Meeting:
· Only the Town of Oakville has a policy of mandatory muzzling orders, which
results in about 160 orders being issued annually of which 75% result in
appeals. Other GTA municipalities either do not issue muzzling orders or they
have policies that are similar to those of PAW.
· The Dog Owner's Liability Act was enacted to create liability for damages
against a dog owner and to permit the injured person to seek redress in a
simplified form without the necessity of commencing an action. Most often this
Act is used by a victim of a dog bite to try to have the animal euthanized.
Report CL 44-02
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
Date:
December27,2002
Page 4
The Towns of Ajax and Whitby do not intend to change their Cat and Dog By-
laws to provide for a mandatory muzzling order. They will continue to give
discretion to the Supervisor of Animal Services to issue muzzling orders based
on the following criteria:
The past and present temperament and behaviour of the dog;
The seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting;
Unusual contributory circumstances tending to justify the action of the dog;
The improbability that a similar attack will be repeated;
The dog's physical potential for inflicting harm;
Precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future;
and
Any other circumstances that the Animal Services Supervisor considers to
be relevant.
· If Council proceeds to require mandatory muzzling orders that in turn could lead
to a higher number of appeals from the order being requested, the PAW Joint
Animal Services Committee may request Pickering Council to hear those
appeals.
· Section 210.10 of the Municipal Act states that every dog owner who has been
issued a muzzling order is entitled to a hearing before Council or a committee
thereof or the animal control official, if so delegated by Council, which or who
may exempt the owner from the muzzling or leashing requirement. Since it is the
Animal Services Supervisor who issues the order, it would not be appropriate for
her to hear appeals against the order. At present, Pickering Council has
delegated the right to hear appeals to the PAW Joint Animal Services
Committee, however, as noted above, the Committee may refer this right back to
Pickering Council.
Other than the above issues being discussed by the PAW Joint Animal Services
Committee at its Special Meeting, no decisions or recommendations were made by the
Committee.
As directed by the resolution passed on November 4, 2002, I have provided a draft by-
law to amend the City's Cat and Dog By-law to provide for mandatory muzzling and
leashing orders as set out in the resolution.
Attachments'
PAW Treasurer's Report 4-02
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the PAW Joint Animal Services Committee
held on December 10, 2002
Draft by-law to amend By-law 5728/00 (Cat and Dog By-law) to provide for
mandatory muzzling and leashing orders
Report CL 44-02
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
Prepared By:
k'Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Attachments
Recommended for the consideration of :
Pickering City Council
Thomas J. Q , Chfef A~m~,nistrative O~ficer
Date:
December 27, 2002
Page 5
,I
CONFIDENTIAL
TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE PICKERING~ A.]AX
WHITBY 30INT ANIMAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
ITEM 4-0:!
December 10, 2002
Sub~ec~:
Dog Biting
Recommendation:
That Treasurer's Report, Item 4-02, De received as information;
Origin:
At a meeting held on November 4~h, 2002, the Council of the City of Pickering
passed the following resolution requiring the muzzling and leashing of dogs
that bite a person or another domestic animal:
WHEREAS an incident occurred in the City of Pickering on October t0:'', 2002
wherein a child was bitten so severely by a neighbour's dog that the child
was taken to the hospital emergency department for treatment; and
WHEREAS the incident took ptace on a public road and the child did not
provoke the dog in any way; and,
WHEREAS Section 9(1) of City of Pickering By-law No. 5728/00 (Cat and Dog
By-law) states'
Where a dog has bitten a person or domestic animal, the
Animal Control and Pound Supervisor may, at his or her
discretion., order the dog to be muzzled or leashed or both,
for a period of time to be determined by the Animal
Control and Pound Supervisor and the owner of the dog
shall comply therewith.
WHEREAS the Supervisor, Animat Services Centre determined that is was not
necessary to order the dog that was involved in the October :1.0t~ incident to
be muzzled; and
WHEREAS the only other alternative left to the mother of the child that was
bitten to ensure the safety of her child was to make a civil application under
the Dog Owners' Liability Act to have the offending dog destroyed; and
WHEREAS Section 4(1) of the Dog Owners' Liability Act states that "if it is
alleged that a dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal, a
proceeding may be commenced against the owner ............... "; and,
WHEREAS a proceeding under Section 4(!) of the Dog Owners' Liability Act
may be made by the Municipality in addition to the person that was attacked
by the dog or other interested party,; and
WHEREAS it is the responsibility of the Hunicipaiity and its agent heine the
PAW Animai Services Centre to ensure the safety of its residents through
aggressive enforcement and application of its by-laws;
Treasurer's Report, item 4,-02 (Continued)
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing
herei~y amends Section 9(1) of CitY., of Picketing By-law No. 5728/00 (Cat and
Dog By-law) to read:
Where a dog has bitten a person or domestic
animab the Animal Control and Pound Supervisor
shall order the dog to be muzzled and leashed for
a period of time to be determined bV the Animal
Control and Pound Supervisor aha such
determination shall include a period of quarantine
as required in consultation with the Durham
Regional Health Department and the owner shall
comply therewith.
FURTHER THAT such muzzling and leashing order remain in effect until the owner of tile
dog can prove definitely that the,/have effective controi of the dog or until a decision is
made by the PAW Joint Animal Services Committee in the event that the owner of the dog
aopeais the muzzling and/or leashing order; and,
FURTHER-I'HAT the Supervisor, Animal Services Centre shall immediately inform the Clerk
of the City of Pickering of all incidents involving a dog bite in order for the City to initiate
proceedings against the owner of the dog under the Dog Owners' Liability' Act where such
proceedings are deemed in the best interest and safety of the community.
Analysis:
Backqround
As the resolution indicates, Pickering's action was precipitated by a dog biting
inciclent which occurred in the City on October 10:~, 2002. Attached to this report
(refer to Attachment No. !) is a copy of an overview of the incident prepared by the
Cler~ of the City of Pickering.
Coni:rary to the report, a muzzling/leashing order was issued by the Animal Services
Supervisor on November 1, 2002. A copy of the order is set out in Attachment No.
2 to this report. The order requires the owner of the dog to keep it muzzled at all
times when the dog is outside. The order also requires that the dog be leashed
when it is outside. Subsequent to the issuance of the muzzling/leashing order, the
owner of the dog was found to be in violation of the order and charges have now
been laid under the Cib/of Pickering's Cat and Dog By-law for failure to comply with
the }rder. The charges are scheduled for court hearing in January.
in aJdition to issuing a muzzling/leashing oraer, the Animal Services Supervisor in
co-cperation with the Cib/of Pickering's prosecutor, assisted the victim's family in
laying a private information under the Dog Owners' Liability Act to have the dog
deslroyed. Unfortunately, for reasons that are still not clear, the Justice of the
Peace of the Ontario Court (Provinciai Division) refused to hear the private
information stating that, in his considered opinion, matters of this nature are more
properly prosecuted by the "Hunicipaiil:F". The City of Pickering has subsequently
initiated proceedings under the Dog Owners' Liat~ili~ Act and the application is
scheduled to be heara in _~anuary,.
This dog biting incident and the resulting actions cf the Justice of the Peace and
Picketing Ci~ Council raise questions regarding the appropriateness of ?.A.W.'s
poik~ procedures with respect to muzzling and leashing orders and the laying of
info'mations under the Dog Owners' Liat)itity Act.
Treasurer's Repo~, Item 4~02 (Continued)
t4uzzlincj and Leashinq of Doqs
Subsection 210(!0) of the Hunicipal Act authorizes the councils of local
municipalities to pass by-laws "for requiring the muzzling or leashing of a dog after
it has bitten a person or a domestic animal, but the owner of the dog may request
and is entitled to a hearing by the council or a committee thereof or the animal
control official of ~:l~e municipality so delegated by Council, which or who may
exempt the owner from the muzzling or leashing requirement, or both". In keeping
with this, Ajax, Picketing and Whitby have all passed by-laws regulating the
muz_ding and leashing of dogs. Relevant extract from the cat and dog by-laws of
the lhree municipalities is set out in Attachment No. 3 to this report.
Prio~ to the passing of the October 10~:', 2002, resolution of Picketing City Council,
the issuance of muzzling/leashing orders in the PAW coverage area was
discretionary, not mandatory. That is to say that where a dog bit a person or a
domestic animal., the by-taws of the three municipalities gave the Animal Services
Supervisor the discretion of deciding whether or not a muzzling or leashing order
was appropriate considering the circumstances. The owner of a dog that was
ordered muzzled or leashed had the right to appeal the order to the Picketing, Ajax,
Whilby Joint Animal Services Committee and the Committee's decision was final.
In the last five years 8 problem dogs have been ordered muzzled by the Animal
Services Supervisor. The PAW Committee has heard one appeal of a muzzling
order.
The practice followed by other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area varies
sign ficantly from one municipality to another. For exampie, animal services staff
in BJr!ington, Hamilton and klississauga do not issue muzzling/leashing orders.
The,/ leave it up to the Ontario Court of' _Justice to make a ruling under the Dog
Owr ers' Liability Act. Oarington, Newmarket and Oshawa follow a procedure similar
to that followed in Ajax and Whitby. Only in Oakville is there a mandatoQ'
muzzling/leashing ~rocedure. if a dog bites a person ~n Oakvilte and the dog is not
o[1 ii:s owner's property at the time of the incident then the dog is automatically
ordered muzzled and leashed. Approximately 160 orders were issued last year in
Oakville of which approximately 75% resulted in appeals.
Star-' believe the best interest and safety of the public are served by giving the
Animal Services Supervisor the discretion to decide whether a muzzling/leashing
order is appropriate given the particular circumstances of the dog biting incident.
After all, not all incidents are the same and not all are clear cut. in some cases the
dog may have been provoked, in others there may be some question as to the
actual identity of the vicious dog or whether in fact a t)iting incident has actually
occurred. Still in other cases, the dog biting may have occurred during the
commission of a criminai act. it is important that the Supervisor of Animal Services
be civen the discretion to take into consideration;
(a) the past and present temperament and behaviour of the dog;
(b) the seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting;
(c) unusual contributory circumstances tending to justify the a~ion of the dog;
(d) the improbability that a similar attack wi/[ be repeated;
~: the dog's physical potential for inflicting harm;
(ff,,', precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future; and,
(g) any other circumstances that the Animal Sen, ices Supervisor considers to be
reievanL
Owners' Liability .Act
Where it is alleged that a dog has bitten or a~acKea a person or domestic animal,
a p[oceeding may be commenced against ~he owner of the dog under the Dog
Owners' Liability Act. Where the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) finds that the
dog has bitten or attaci~ed a person or domestic animal and the Court is satisfied
that an orcier is necessary, for the protection of the pui~lic, the Court may order that
,.~ ~_ ~og be destroyed or that the owner ,3F the co~ take such steps as are provided
~n the order for ':he more effective contrc, i cf :he ~oa. A copy of ,_he Ac~ is set out
Treasurer's Report, Item 4-02 (Continuedl
The Act was enacted to create liability for damages against a dog owner and [o
permit the injured person to seek redress in a simplified form without the necessity
of commencing an action. The Act was not created for the purposes of
municipal enforcement.
Even under the Municipal Act, a private citizen has the right to commence
enfcrcement proceedings for breach of a municipal by-law. The decision to enforce
by-ii]ws is a policy decision that each municipaiib/must make and although a Justice
may question the policy it is incorrect to deny a person the rignt to enforce a by-law
because the Justice does not agree with the policy dec!sion of the municipality.
In most municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area, persons wishing to seek redress
as a result of a dog biting incident are required to make application to the Ontario
Cou~t for a private information. The municipality may assist the injured person with
the ]aperwork and the prosecution, but the onus rests with the individual to make
the application, not the municipaiitv, it is only in extreme cases that most
mur icipalities will commence a proceeding under the Dog Owners' Liability Act to
haw~. a dog destroyed.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE PtCKERING, AJAX AND WHITBY
JOINT ANIMAL SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2002, AT 5:00
AT THE AJAX CIVIC CENTRE
.Present:
D. Fox. Councillor. Town of YVhitby - Chair
P. Brown. Councillor, Town of Ajax
W. McLean. Councillor, City of Pic,~ering
M. deRond. Clerk. Town of Ajax
D. McKay, Director of Corporate Services, Town of Whitby
B. Taylor. C',erk, City of Picketing
S. Koch, Supervisor, Animal Se~ices Centre
J. Holmes. Technical Advisor
R. Bishop, Prosecutor for the City of Picketing and Towns of Ajax
and Whitby
This SFeciai Meeting of the PAW Joint Animai Services Committee was called
pursuant to Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Animal Control Agreement to consider
Confidential Treasurer's Report 4-02 regarding dog biting.
This Special Meeting was a Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 55(5) of the
Municipal Act.
k,~oved by: W. McLean
']'hat Confidential Treasurer's Report 4-02
raceived as information.
CARRIED
regarding Dog Biting be
Councillor McLean gave an oven]Jew of the resolution passed by
Picketing Council on November 4, 2002 regarding the muzzling of a dog
where it has bitten a person or domestic animal.
The Supervisor, Animal Services Centre, provided an overview of the
criteria involved in determining if a dog should be muzzled once she has
been notified that a dog has attacked and/or bitten a person or domestic
animal.
Councillor Brown asked if a muzzling order could be imposed for a short
period of time while an investigation of a dog attack and/or bite is
undertaken. The Treasurer responded that Section 210(I0) of the
Municipal Act states that a person who has been issued a muzzling order
is entitled to a hearing before a Council or committee.
Dr. Holmes stated that most modern muzzles are not uncomfortable for a
clog, however, people are often frightened when they see a dog that is
muzzled.
Councillor McLean stated that a comprehensive form should be
developed tnat couia be used by an Animal Services Officer when
iwesdgating a dog ~ite. Copies of !h',s form snouid then be used to
iqform the c, ca~ municipality, ~he ',de~ith dnii ap, C the ?oiice. He
~uggestea that a muzz!ing order be issued pending an inves,:~gation of the
dog bi~.e incident.
Rhonda Bishop provided an overview of the Dog Owner's Liaaility Act and
toted that for municipalities like Pickering, Ajax and Whitby that have
~nimal control by-laws that inc!uae provisions for muzzling orders, this
is normally used by, the victim of a dog bite to !hz to have the anirnai
euthanized. A municipality could also use ihis Act if they felt that ::he
t'istory cf a dog that has bitten a person or domestic animal is such that a
muzzling order ~s not sufficient and the dog should be euthanized.
The Treasurer indicated that with resuect to muzziing or restraining
c,rders, the City of Picketing, through its resoiu~ion passed on November
~, 2002, is requesting a different level of service provided to the Towns of
Ajax and Whitby. He suggested that the Council of the City' of Picketing,
or a committee thereof, be appointed to hear appeals of muzzling or
restraining orders. The Treasurer indicated that in the short term and
,.~ntil Picketing Council decides how it wishes to proceed with muzzling or
restraining orders, he will instruct the Animal Services staff to immediately
i:~sue muzzling orders for dog bites that occur in Pickering.
Councillor McLean requested that a letter be sent [o the Regional Senior
~ustice stating that the actions and statements made by Justice of the
Peace R. Beck on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 with respect to an action
brought by Cynthia Mason under the Dog Owner's Liability Act respecting
an incident on October 10, 2002 were inappropriate, it was the
consensus of the members of the Cornmittee that such a letter be sent
and the Secretary. was directed to prepare and send the !etter.
'3. Adiournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
Chair Secretary,
THE CORPORATION OF THE CtTY OF PICKERING
BY- L-~,W NO.
Being a by-taw to amend By-law Number
5728/00 to provide for a cat and dog
identification system, and for the
determination of the compensation to be
allowed for impounding, distraining and
detaining cats and dogs.
WHEREAS the Councit of the Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law
Number 5728/00 on August 8. 2000 to provide for a cat and dog identification system,
and for the determination of the compensation to be allowed for impounding, distraining
and detain ng cats and dogs: and
WHEREAS Council passed Resolution #126102 on November 4. 2002 that directs the
Animal Control and Pound Supervisor to order a dog to be muzzled and leashed where
it has bitten a person or domestic animal;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERIN$ HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
Sec:ion 9(!) of By-law Number 5728/00 is hereby deleted and the following is
substituted therefor:
9. (1)
Where a dog has bitten a person or domestic animal, the Animal
Control and Pound Supervisor shall order ti~e dog to be muzzled
and leashed for a period of time to be determined by the Animal
Control and Pound Supervisor and such determination shall include
a period of quarantine as required in consultation with the Durham
Regional Health Department and the owner of the dog shall comply
therewith.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January,
2003.
Wayne Arthurs. Mayor
Bruce Taylor. Clerk
PICKEI x G
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That the draft by-law to appoint three persons to enforce the Parking By-law at
1822 Whites Road, 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road be forwarded to Council for
enactment.
lVlCKERING
From: Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
Subject:
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: CL42-02
Date: November 29, 2002
Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road and
1865 and 1867 Kingston Road.
Recommendation:
That the draft by-law to appoint three persons to enforce the Parking By-law at
1822 Whites Road, 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road. be forwarded to Council for
approval.
Executive Summary: Not Applicable
Financial Implications: None
Background: Correspondence has been received from Securitas Canada Limited
requesting the appointment of three persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the
purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 1865 and 1867 Kingston
Road.
Attachments:
Correspondence from Securitas Canada Limited
Draft By-law
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Debbie Kearns
Committee Coordinator
Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
-l-
Report CL 42-02
Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers
Date:
November29,2002
Page 2
BT:dk
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
Tho/~'-~-Q~'i~'n, C~inisCr~tive offi~'er ,
ENT#_ TO REPORT
SECURITAS CANADa, s,_TM~ i t: D
~}0~-~ :~:'~, ,~. ~ ' 'J t~ ~:
,...,(,r .,.~ .... bd~ ,. formerly k ....... as Bu:n$ tnte:nat:onai Sec.:ntv' Services wish tn have the
Pickenng ":Se .... ,'"~: ........... -', ;'' ...... :' :' ' , .... ~ .... ~,,',p: '"' .....
Jason Qhar
Thank ,.,n, .......... ~ fo!' VOLIF time and consideration please ~,'xnta"?
~i}'~,e ' , m~ar,, f:i ',,,-"w'~;~ ;tp'.(-~,
Anderson
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement
Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation -
1822 Whites Road, 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road.)
WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P.15, as
amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the
municipality; and
WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act. municipal by-law enforcement
officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
That the following persons be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement
officers in and for the City of Pickering I order to ascertain whether the provisions
of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law
and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands
municipally known as 1822 Whites Road and 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road.
The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in
section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time. to exceed the authority set out in
section 1.
These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section 1ceasing to
be employees of Securitas Canada Limited or upon Securitas Canada Limited
ceasing to be an agent of 1822 Whites Road and 1865 and 1867' Kingston Road,
or upon whichever shall occur first.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20~ day of January,
2003.
Wayne Arthurs. Mayor
Bruce Taylor. Clerk