HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 29, 2025Page 1 of 5
Minutes/Meeting Summary
Animal Services Appeal Committee
January 29, 2025
Electronic Meeting
10:00 am
Attendees: S.Frost (Committee Member)
T. Yan (Committee Member
M. Yousaf-Zai (Appellant)
L. (Appellant)
Tom (Witness)
Max (Witness)
C. Milanes, Animal Services Officer
J. Litoborski, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services (Staff Liaison)
A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary)
Regrets: Councillor S. Butt (Committee Member)
Item/
Ref
#
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items/Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
1. Call to Order
J. Litoborski called the Meeting to order and
provided an overview of the Appeal Hearing
process.
2. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
3. Appeal Hearings
3.1 Order to Restrain No. OTR 2025-01
C. Milanes, Animal Services Officer made a
statement to the Committee. Mr. Milanes spoke to
the complaint he received regarding a dog that is
constantly running at-large, and going onto the
complainant’s property. He indicated that he had a
follow up conversation with the dog owner M.
Yousaf-Zai by phone on December 11, 2024
regarding the matter, where the owner admitted that
the dog sometimes ran to the boulevard in front of
his house to urinate and was let outside in the night
without a leash, but rather with a shock collar. Mr.
Page 2 of 5
Item/
Ref
#
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items/Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
Milanes said that the owner indicated that the dog ,a
Belgian Malinois mix named Buddy, was well
trained. He explained that he educated the owner
regarding the leash requirement within the City’s
Responsible Pet Ownership By-law, and that the
owner indicated that he would keep the dog on the
leash to avoid further issues with his neighbours.
C. Milanes continued his statement indicating that
less than two weeks after, he received another
complaint from the complainant that the dog was
continuing to run at-large, with accompanying video
evidence dated between December 13, 2024 and
December 23, 2024. Mr. Milanes explained that he
reached out to M. Yousaf-Zai on January 3, 2025 to
advise that he had received evidence of his dog
leaving his property without a leash on four
separate occasions within the span of a week. Mr.
Milanes indicated that M. Yousaf-Zai denied that to
be true, however admitted that there may have
been one additional incident where his dog ran to
the boulevard without a leash.
C. Milanes explained that due to the owner’s
disregard for the City’s Responsible Pet Ownership
By-law, he was issued an Order to Restrain (Order
No. OTR 2025-01). He explained that the order was
hand delivered to M. Yousaf-Zai’s home along with
a copy of the City’s Responsible Pet Ownership By-
law, however no one was home. He indicated that a
subsequent copy of the order and By-law were sent
to M. Yousaf-Zai via registered mail.
C. Milanes concluded his remarks listing the
provisions of Order to Retrain No. 2025-01.
J. Litoborski introduced the Complainants, Max and
Tom.
Max explained that C. Milanes expressed most of
their concerns, and added that their main concern
was a large breed of dog running off-leash on their
property, and their discomfort with potential safety
issues posed toward them and those walking by in
the neighbourhood.
Page 3 of 5
Item/
Ref
#
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items/Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
A question and answer period ensued between
the Committee and Max, clarifying:
• that the homes in question are detached
homes; and,
• that the dog was observed off-leash on their
front lawn.
J. Litoborski introduced the Appellants, M. Yousaf-
Zai and L.
L. stated that she had an issue with how the Order
to Restrain was delivered.
J. Litoborski clarified that the hearing was not to
consider the way in which the Order was delivered,
that the order had been issued by registered mail,
and clarified the City’s obligations regarding the
issuance of Orders.
M. Yousaf-Zai expressed concerns regarding the
provision of the Order which prohibits those under
16 years of age from walking the dog as well as the
provision that stipulates a leash lead of 6 feet in
length or less. M. Yousaf-Zai indicated that his dog
had never attacked, jumped, or physically touched
anyone. M. Yousaf-Zai indicated that a complaint
had been made against him to Provincial Animal
Welfare Services about his dog’s well-being and
that there was no wrong-doing found. M. Yousaf-
Zai indicated that his dog usually goes outside at
around 2:00 or 3:00 am, accompanied by him, and
that other wildlife are more likely to be encountered
than his dog. He further stated that his neighbours
know his dog and are not afraid of his dog, and that
the dog is only going on the complainant’s property
one (1) foot from the sidewalk. M. Yousaf-Zai had
indicated that his dog Buddy had never approached
Max or his family before and spoke to his other
neighbour Pete’s dog frequently being loose. He
continued his remarks stating that the complainant
Max’s dog had been off-leash in the past and noted
a past incident where Max’s dog was not under
control.
J. Litoborski reminded M. Yousaf-Zai to ensure his
statement remained regarding the Order to Restrain
and the provisions he wished to dispute.
Page 4 of 5
Item/
Ref
#
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items/Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
M. Yousaf-Zai reiterated his concerns with the
provision of the Order which prohibits those under
16 years of age from walking the dog as well as the
provision that stipulates a leash lead of 6 feet in
length or less.
Moved by S. Frost
Seconded by T. Yan
That M. Yousaf-Zai and L. be granted two (2)
additional minutes to complete their statement.
Carried
L. indicated that their dog had since not been let out
without a leash since the Order was issued, and
that they wish to have to only have to adhere to the
City’s Responsible Pet Ownership By-law and not
the additional restrictions in the Order. L. concluded
the statement stating that their dog is well taken
care of.
A question and answer period ensued between
the Committee, M. Yousaf-Zai, and L. regarding:
• the appellants 12 year old child who had never
walked the dog alone;
• the dog’s age being 2.5 years;
• the dog being a mix of Belgian Malois and
German Shepherd;
• the training that the dog had undertaken; and,
• the approximate weight of the dog being
approximately 65 - 70 lbs.
Max clarified that they had not previously
contacted Provincial Animal Welfare Services
regarding this dog.
Moved by S. Frost
Seconded by T. Yan
That the Committee move in camera for
deliberations.
Carried
Note: This portion of the meeting was closed to
Page 5 of 5
Item/
Ref
#
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items/Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting
minutes for further information. [City Clerk has
custody and control of the In Camera minutes.]
The Committee took a brief pause to allow the
livestream of the Meeting to be resumed.
J. Litoborski stated that the Committee had
deliberated and had made a decision to uphold
Order to Restrain No. 2025-01 as issued. He
stated that the Committee’s decision is final and
binding and that a written decision will be issued
to the appellant.
4. Adjournment
Moved by T. Yan
Seconded by S. Frost
That the meeting be adjourned.
Carried
Meeting Adjourned: 10:43 am
For more information regarding the Animal Services Appeal Committee, please contact:
City of Pickering By-law Enforcement Services
905-420-4660
bylaw@pickering.ca