HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-10-157 - Dog Designation Appeal Committee - CioancaREPORT TO: Mayor C. Zehr and Members of Council
DATE OF MEETING: October 4, 2010
SUBMITTED BY: Dog Designation Appeal Committee
PREPARED BY: Colin Goodeve, Committee Administrator
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: September 20, 2010
REPORT NO.: CRPS-10-157
SUBJECT: DOG DESIGNATION APPEAL COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION: APPEAL OF AMANDA CIOANCA
RECOMMENDATION:
That the decision of the Dog Designation Appeal Committee regarding an appeal filed by
Amanda Cioanca, wherein the Committee rescinds the Prohibited Dog Designations
assigned to her dogs `Precious' and `Remy' by the Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo
Humane Society, be ratified and confirmed.
BACKGROUND:
On October 14, 2009, the Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane Society designated
`Precious' and `Remy', dogs owned by Amanda Cioanca, as Prohibited Dogs, after determining
that their physical characteristics predominantly conform to those of a `Pit Bull' in accordance
with the standards set out in Schedule `C' of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 530 (Dogs).
Subsequently, the Office of the City Clerk received correspondence from Ms. Cioanca,
appealing the Prohibited Dog Designations; and accordingly, Notices of Hearing were issued to
the Appellant (Amanda Cioanca) and the Respondent (the Kitchener-Waterloo and North
Waterloo Humane Society).
At the December 14, 2009 hearing, the Committee considered the evidence and exhibits
submitted by the Respondent and the Appellant, and agreed to affirm the Prohibited Dog
Designations. This decision was considered by City Council at its January 18, 2010 meeting, at
which time Ms. Cioanca submitted new evidence regarding the breed of her dogs; and as such,
Council resolved to refer the matter back to the Committee.
REPORT:
On March 29, 2010, the Committee considered Ms. Cioanca's new evidence, which indicated
that in the opinion of her veterinarian, Dr. Jeffery Cubitt, DVM, her dogs are Boxer Cross
Breeds. At the request of Ms. J. Sheryer, on behalf of the Respondent, the Committee agreed
to adjourn this matter to a future hearing to allow time for Ms. Cioanca to arrange to have Dr.
Cubitt address the Committee regarding the breed of the subject dogs. Ms. Cioanca was
2-1
instructed to notify the Committee Administrator at least two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled
meeting dates in April, May or June to indicate whether she and Dr. Cubitt would be addressing
the Committee; failing to do so, a hearing would be held in June to resolve this matter.
At the June 14, 2010 hearing, Ms. Cioanca informed the Committee that she did not receive the
Notice of Hearing for that meeting. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, the Dog Designation
Appeal Committee adjourned the matter to provide an additional opportunity for Ms. Cioanca to
arrange to have Dr. Cubitt address the Committee. In lieu of having her veterinarian attend, Ms.
Cioanca was given the alternative of requesting Dr. Cubitt to provide a written statement
specifically identifying the distinctive physical characteristics which lead him to believe that
`Precious' and `Remy' are Boxer Cross Breeds and not Pit Bulls as defined in Municipal Code
Chapter 530 (Dogs).
At the September 20, 2010 hearing, Ms. Amanda Cioanca, submitted documentation from Dr.
Cubitt, which attested that based on his 35 years of experience he identified several
characteristics to indicate that `Precious' and `Remy' more closely approximate with the breed
standards of a Boxer than those of the Bull Terrier breeds. Based on this new evidence, the
Committee agreed to rescind the Prohibited Dog Designations applied to `Precious' and `Remy'.
In addition, the Committee noted that given the current provincial legislation and the ambiguity
surrounding the subject dogs' appearances, it might be in Ms. Cioanca's best interest to muzzle
her dogs anytime when they are not on her property.
Pursuant to Chapter 530.11.5 of Kitchener's Municipal Code, all decisions of the Dog
Designation Appeal Committee must be ratified or affirmed by Council before taking effect and
Council may ratify or affirm, rescind, add to, vary, or substitute the designation and any of the
restrictions imposed upon the keeping of a dog set out in the Committee's decision. In this
regard, the recommendation contained herein will appear on the October 4, 2010, Committee of
the Whole agenda.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
COMMUNICATIONS:
The Dog Designation Appeal Committee's Notice of Decision was served on the Appellant and
the Respondent via registered mail on September 21, 2010; thereby notifying both parties that
the Committee's decision would be considered at the October 4, 2010 Council meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: T. Speck, General Manager of Corporate Services
2 ~ 2