HomeMy WebLinkAboutCL 44-02
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
7
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:
8 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
Date: December 27, 2002
9
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
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 GT A 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.
10
Report CL 44-02
Date: December 27,2002
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
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 Councilor 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:
3.
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
1.
2.
Report CL 44-02
Date: December 27,2002
11
Subject: Muzzling and Leashing of Dogs
Page 5
Prepared By:
1Íz/ ~
¿uce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Attachments
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
"
12
J.\TTACHMENT#--L TO REPORT#~ Ljt.f- °'-
CONFIDENTIAL
TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE PICKERING. AJAX
WHITBY JOINT ANIMAL SERVICES COMMmEE
ITEM 4-0~~
December 10, 2002
Subject:
Dog Biting
Recommendation:
That Treasurer's Report, Item 4-02, be received as information;
Orjçlin:
At a meeting held on November 4th, 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 10th f 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 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, Animal Services Centre determined that is 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 the 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;
/ TTACH ¡V; p. ", j, -(~ TO REPORT # ~l ye.¡ - (\""1-
Treasurer's ReDort, Item 4-02 (Continued) -.
13
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering
hereby amends Section 9(1) of City of Pickering By-law No. 5728/00 (Cat and
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 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 shall
comply therewith.
FURTHER THAT such muzzling and leashing order remain in effect until the owner of the
dog can pnwe definitely that they have effective control of the dog or until a decision is
made by th.e 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.
Analvsjs:
Background
As the resolution indicates, Pickering's action was precipitated by a dog biting
incident which occurred in the City on October 10th, 2002, Attached to this report
(refer to Attachment No, 1) is a copy of an overview of the incident prepared by the
Clerl< of the City of Pickering,
Contrary 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
timE:S 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 City of Pickering's Cat and Dog By-law for failure to comply with
the'Drder. The charges are scheduled for court hearing in January,
In addition to issuing a muzzling/leashing order, the Animal Services Supervisor in
co-operation with the City of Pickering's prosecutor, assisted the victim's family in
laying a private information under the Dog Owners' Liability Act to have the dog
destroyed. Unfortunately, for reasons that are still not clear, the Justice of the
Peace of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) refused to hear the private
infor"mation stating that, in his considered opinion, matters of this nature are more
properly prosecuted by the "Municipality", The City of Pickering has subsequently
initiated proceedings under the Dog Owners' Liability Act and the application is
SChE!duled to be heard in January.
This dog biting incident and the resulting actions of the Justice of the Peace and
Pickering City Council raise questions regarding the appropriateness of P.A,W.'s
policy procedures with respect to muzzling and leashing orders and the laying of
informations under the Dog Owners' Liability Act.
14
Treasurer's Report. Item 4-02 (Continuef)\Ch,'
;;._L rc REPORT # ~l/'f- Ot.-
MuzzlinQ and Leashing of DoQS
Subsection 210(10) of the Municipal 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 councilor a committee thereof or the animal
control official of the 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, Pickering and Whitby have all passed by-laws regulating the
muzzling and leashing of dogs, Relevant extract from the cat and dog by-laws of
the three municipalities is set out in Attachment No, 3 to this report.
Prior to the passing of the October 10th, 2002, resolution of Pickering 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-laws of the three municipalities gave the Animal Services
SupE~rvisor 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 Pickering, Ajax,
Whitby 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
sigmficantly from one municipality to another, For example, animal services staff
in Burlington, Hamilton and Mississauga do not issue muzzling/leashing orders.
The\( leave it up to the Ontario Court of Justice to make a ruling under the Dog
Owners' Liability Act, Clarington, Newmarket and Oshawa follow a procedure similar
to tl1at followed in Ajax and Whitby, Only in Oakville is there a mandatory
muzzling/leashing procedure, If a dog bites a person in Oakville and the dog is not
on its 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
Oak'."ille of which approximately 75% resulted in appeals.
StafF 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
ord€:r 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 biting incident has actually
occurred. Still in other cases, the dog biting may have occurred during the
commission of a criminal act, It is important that the Supervisor of Animal Services
be given the discretion to take into consideration;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
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.
DoCI Owners' Liability Act
Where it is alleged that a dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal,
a proceeding may be commenced against the owner of the dog under the Dog
Owners' Liability Act, Where the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) finds that the
dog/has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal and the Court is satisfied
that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, the Court may order that
the dog be destroyed or that the owner of the dog take such steps as are provided
in the order for the more effective control of the dog, A copy of the Act is set out
Treasurer's Report. Item 4-02 (Continued)
.L.,
"~~~)O" f)" ,#CL ,,-/'1- ðl.-
K,¡;;! ,\I -"
15
The 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 cDmmencing 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
enfc,rcement proceedings for breach of a municipal by-law. The decision to enforce
by-laws is a policy decision that each municipality must make and although a Justice
may question the policy it is incorrect to deny a person the right to enforce a by-law
becéluse the Justice does not agree with the policy decision 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
Court for a private information, The municipality may assist the injured person with
the paperwork and the prosecution, but the onus rests with the individual to make
the application, not the municipality. It is only in extreme cases that most
municipalities will commence a proceeding under the Dog Owne.rs' Liability Act to
have a dog destroyed.
16
,'fA...),
?-
CL L/L/- 02-
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE PICKERING, AJAX AND WHITBY
JOINT ANIMAL SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2002, AT 5:00 P,M,
AT THE AJAX CIVIC CENTRE
Present:
D. Fox, Councillor, Town of Whitby - Chair
P. Brown, Councillor, Town of Ajax
W, Mclean, Councillor, City of Pickering
M, deRond, Clerk, Town of Ajax
D. McKay, Director of Corporate Services, Town of Whitby
B. Taylor, Clerk, City of Pickering
S. Koch, Supervisor, Animal Services Centre
J. Holmes, Technical Advisor
R. Bishop, Prosecutor for the City of Pickering and Towns of Ajax
and Whitby
This Special Meeting of the PAW Joint Animal 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.
1.
Moved by:
W. Mclean
That Confidential Treasurer's Report 4-02 regarding Dog Biting be
received as information.
CARRIED
.
Councillor Mclean gave an overview of the resolution passed by
Pickering 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
~mimal.
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 21 O( 10) of the
Municipal Act states that a person who has been issued a muzzling order
i!S entitled to a hearing before a Council or committee.
Dr. Holmes stated that most modern muzzles are not uncomfortable for a
dog, however, people are often frightened when they see a dog that is
muzzled.
Councillor Mclean stated that a comprehensive form should be
developed that could be used by an Animal Services Officer when
investigating a dog bite. Copies of this form should then be used to
inform the local municipality, the Health Unit and the Police. He
s:uggested that a muzzling order be issued pending an investigation of the
clog bite incident.
.
.
.
.
..../2
! U-\ L h ,'; .
7--
¿ t. 1./'-/ - Ol.--
--2--
1'7
.
Hhonda Bishop provided an overview of the Dog Owner's Liability Act and
noted that for municipalities like Pickering, Ajax and Whitby that have
¡¡lnimal control by-laws that include provisions for muzzling orders, this Act
¡is normally used by the victim of a dog bite to try to have the animal
Eluthanized. A municipality could also use thjs Act if they felt that the
history òf a dog that has bitten a person or domestic animal is such that a
muzzling order is not sufficient and the dog should be euthanized.
The Treasurer indicated that with respect to muzzling or restraining
orders, the City of Pickering, through its resolution passed on November
..q" 2002, is requesting a different level of service provjded to the Towns of
I~ax and Whitby. He suggested that the Council of the City of Pickering,
(Ir a committee thereof, be appointed to hear appeals of muzzling or
restraining orders. The Treasurer indicated that in the short term and
until Pickering Council decides how it wishes to proceed with muzzling or
restraining orders, he will instruct the Animal Services staff to immediately
hssue muzzling orders for dog bites that occur in Pickering.
.
2.
Councillor McLean requested that a letter be sent to the Regional Senior
J.!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
. ¡¡In incident on October 10, 2002 were inappropriate. It was the
consensus of the members of the Committee that such a letter be sent
and the Secretary was directed to prepare and send the letter.
3.
I~diournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
Chair
Secretary
-' t
"3
"
# -~~ '-1'-1- elL-
18
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law 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 Council of the Corporation of the City of Pjckering enacted By-law
Number 5i'28/00 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:ing cats and dogs; and
WHEREAS Council passed Resolution #126/02 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
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1.
Section 9(1) of By-law Number 5728/00 is hereby deleted and the following is
sub~~tituted therefor:
9.
(1)
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 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 road a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January,
2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk