HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-15-081 - Dog Designation - Schnarr
REPORT TO: Mayor B. Vrbanovic and Members of Council
DATE OF MEETING: June 1, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Dog Designation Appeal Committee
PREPARED BY: Daphne Livingstone, Committee Administrator
519-741-2200 x7275
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: May 12, 2015
REPORT NO.: FCS-15-081
SUBJECT: Dangerous Dog Designation Appeal – Schnarr
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the decision of the Dog Designation Appeal Committee regarding an appeal
filed by Jesse Schnarr, wherein the Committee confirms the Dangerous Dog
Designation and modifies the conditions for keeping of said dog, be ratified and
confirmed.
BACKGROUND:
On March 23, 2015 the Dog Designation Appeal Committee met to consider an Appeal
filed by Mr. Jesse Schnarr related to the Dangerous Dog Designation applied by the
Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane Society to his dog ‘Pirate’ on February
5, 2015. The Committee recommended confirming the Dangerous Dog Designation, in
the absence of the Appellant who chose not attend the Hearing. The Committee found
that ‘Pirate’ attacked another dog without provocation in contravention of the City of
Kitchener By-law 2014-142 (Being a by-law with respect to the designation of Potentially
Dangerous, Dangerous, Prohibited and Restricted Dogs). The Committee’s
recommendation was considered by Council at their meeting of April 13, 2015, at which
time the matter was referred back to the Dog Designation Appeal Committee to provide
an opportunity to consider evidence and testimony of Mr. Jesse Schnarr, Appellant, and
Ms. Zoe Brown, Witness.
The Office of the City Clerk subsequently issued a Notice of the Hearing for May 11,
2015, to the Respondent (the Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane Society).
The standard process of issuing the Notice of Hearing to the Appellant (Jesse Schnarr)
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5. - 1
Page 2 of 5
via registered mail was undertaken on April 22, 2015; however, after repeated attempts
by Canada Post and City staff to contact the Appellant, it was deemed to be unclaimed.
In spite of these numerous attempts to contact the Appellant prior to the Hearing, it is
noted that Mr. Schnarr and Ms. Brown were in attendance on May 11, 2015.
REPORT:
On May 11, 2015 the Dog Designation Committee convened a Hearing to consider the
evidence and testimony of Mr. Jesse Schnarr, Appellant, and Witness, Ms. Zoe Brown
relative to the Dangerous Dog Designation applied as a result of the January 17, 2015
attack on ‘Bubbles’. In addition, in accordance with Section 15.1(1) of the Statutory
Power Procedures Act, the evidence and testimony provided at the March 23, 2015
Hearing by the Respondent, the Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane
Society, and Mr. William Grant, Witness, was given equal consideration. Based on all of
the evidence and exhibits, the Committee determined that in the absence of mitigating
factors, ‘Pirate’ did attack ‘Bubbles’, a 10 month old Shar Pei, resulting in severe injuries
being sustained by the Shar Pei.
In consideration of the testimony provided by the Appellant, the Committee deliberated
on the financial hardship the Appellant is experiencing and determined that the
conditions would be modified to remove the requirement of relocation to a dwelling that
was not in a multi-unit building. In addition, the Committee modified the requirements of
the Decision to allow the Appellant to have 60 days for sterilization and microchipping of
‘Pirate’ rather than 30 days from ratification. The Committee also recommended that the
dog be muzzled at all times when outside of the apartment unit.
It was noted by the Committee that the Officer for the Respondent, Officer Jennifer
Frayne, has expressed great concern for the safety of the dogs and people in the
apartment complex given the severity of the injuries sustained by ‘Bubbles’. The
Committee emphasized the importance of the Owners to ensure that ‘Pirate’ is muzzled
at all times, with an approved basket cage muzzle, when outside of the apartment unit
in order to ensure the safety of the people and dogs in the community.
The Committee hereby recommends that Council uphold the Dangerous Dog
Designation and assign the following modified requirements for the keeping of said
Dangerous Dog:
That the owner shall:
a) Ensure that the animal services provider is provided with the new address and
telephone number of the owner within two working days of moving the
designated dog;
5. - 2
Page 3 of 5
b) Provide the animal services provider with the name, address and telephone
number of the new owner within two working days of selling or giving away the
designated dog;
c) Advise the animal services provider within two working days of the death of the
designated dog;
d) Advise the animal services provider forthwith if the designated dog runs at
large or has bitten or attacked any person or animal;
e) Provide a copy of this designation to any person who keeps or harbours the
designated dog;
f) Provide a copy of this designation to any veterinarian treating the designated
dog and within the veterinarian’s premises shall be exempt from the
requirements of this designation to the extent necessary to secure veterinary
treatment for the dog at the discretion of the veterinarian;
g) Ensure that the designated dog has a current City dog licence;
h) Ensure that the designated dog wears the tag or tags provided by the animal
services provider at all times and shall pay the reasonable cost for such tag or
tags;
i) Ensure that the designated dog is kept, when it is on the lands and premises of
the owner, confined:
i. within the dwelling;
ii. in an outdoor pen that is both secure and provides humane shelter
to the satisfaction of the animal services provider;
iii. in an area with a secure and adequate fence to the satisfaction of
the animal services provider however the animal services provider
may refuse to approve any fenced area if, in the sole discretion of
the animal services provider, a fenced area would provide
insufficient protection to members of the public including
unsupervised children who may wander into the area; or
iv. when outside of the dwelling and the approved pen or fenced area
contemplated by subsections (b) and (c), under the effective control
of a person of at least sixteen years of age and under harness
designed to improve control, not to exceed 1.8 metres (6 feet) in
length and to be approved by the animal services provider, and,
where the dog is required to wear a muzzle off its property by this
designation shall also wear a muzzle when confined in accordance
with this subsection (d);
j) Ensure that the designated dog is kept caged, penned, or under the control of
a person of at least sixteen years of age when any child under the age of
fourteen is in the owner’s dwelling;
5. - 3
Page 4 of 5
k) Ensure that the designated dog is kept under the effective control of a person
of at least sixteen years of age and under harness designed to improve control,
not to exceed 1.8 metres (6 feet) in length and to be approved by the animal
services provider, at all times when the designated dog is off the owner’s
property and not caged or otherwise penned or confined to the satisfaction of
the animal services provider;
l) Ensure that the designated dog wears a securely attached muzzle that is
satisfactory to the animal services provider at all times when it is outside of the
owner’s apartment unit and not caged or otherwise penned or confined to the
satisfaction of the animal service provider.
m) Ensure that the warning sign or signs provided by the animal services provider
are displayed at the entrance to the owner’s dwelling which a person would
normally approach and at any other place on the property as directed by the
animal services provider. The sign(s) shall be posted in such a manner that
it/they cannot be easily removed by passersby and the sign posted at the
entrance which a person would normally approach must be clearly visible to a
person approaching the entrance, or, when in a multiple unit dwelling, the
owner will provide the name of the property owner and property manager if any
and allow the animal services provider to request that person to post a sign or
signs.
n) Ensure that the designated dog is sterilized and shall provide proof
satisfactory to the animal services provider that such procedure has been
performed within 60 days of this designation becoming a confirmed
designation.
o) Ensure that the designated dog is microchipped by a licensed veterinarian and
supply the microchip information to the animal services provider. The owner
shall also permit the animal services provider to verify the implantation of such
microchip.
p) Be advised that the animal services provider will attend the residence of the
st
, 2015, to
owner 60 days after the designation has been confirmed, June 1
ensure the conditions of the Dangerous Dog Designation have been complied
with.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enforcing the provisions of the Dog Designation By-law aligns with the Strategic Plan by
ensuring that the City is a safe place to live for all residents, while providing a fair and
equitable process for dog owners to seek redress of designations applied to their dogs.
5. - 4
Page 5 of 5
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM - All those in attendance at the May 11, 2015 Hearing, were advised of the
Committee’s decision and that it would be considered at the June 1, 2015 Council
meeting. In addition, a Notice of Decision was sent to the Appellant and the
Respondents via registered mail on May 19, 2015; thereby, further notifying both parties
of when the Committee’s decision would be considered by Council and the process for
registering as a delegation.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, DCAO, Finance and Corporate Services
5. - 5