Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-16-088 - Dog Designation - Pham REPORT TO: Mayor B. Vrbanovic and Members of Council DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2016 SUBMITTED BY: Dog Designation Appeal Committee PREPARED BY: Daphne Livingstone, Committee Administrator, 519-741-2200 x7275 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: May 11, 2016 REPORT NO.: FCS-16-088 SUBJECT: Dangerous Dog Designation Appeal – Pham ______________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That the decision of the Dog Designation Appeal Committee regarding an appeal filed by Ngan Pham, wherein the Committee affirms the Dangerous Dog Designation and modifies the conditions for the keeping of said dog, be ratified and confirmed. BACKGROUND: On January 18, 2016, the Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane Society designated ‘Tofu’, a dog owned by Ms. Ngan Pham, as a Dangerous Dog. The designation was applied after determining that on January 6, 2016 ‘Tofu’ attacked another dog without provocation in contravention to 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 Office of the City Clerk subsequently received correspondence from Ms. Pham appealing the Dangerous Dog Designation; and a Notice of Hearing was issued to the Respondent (the Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane Society). REPORT: The Dog Designation Appeal Committee established by the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener pursuant to City of Kitchener Municipal By-law 2014-142 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990 Chapter S.22, sitting on April 25, 2016 to consider an appeal filed with the City by Ms. Ngan Pham, reports as follows: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 4. - 1 The Committee considered the following: testimony provided on behalf of the Respondent by Officer Courtney Horst, Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane Society, demonstrating ‘Tofu’ attacked a dog owned by Ms. Yousif in contravention to City of Kitchener By-law 2014-142; photographic evidence submitted by Officer Horst showing the condition of the fence on the property of the Appellant and the injuries sustained to the dog owned by Ms. Yousif; testimony of Ms. Yousif, Witness for the Respondent, which was provided with the assistance of interpreters, in support of the Dangerous Dog Designation. Ms. Yousif testified that on January 6, 2016 her dog was attacked while she walked him in the area behind her apartment building, resulting in injury to her dog and her finger; evidence submitted by Ms. Yousif in the form of a veterinarian report dated January 6, 2016 showing the injury to her dog. testimony provided by Ms. Ngan Pham, Appellant and Owner of ‘Tofu’, in opposition to the Designation, describing the unsuccessful efforts to have the fence repaired due to the location of trees in the rear yard. She indicated that ‘Tofu’ and the Appellant’s dog were familiar with one another causing ‘Tofu’ to jump the fence to seek attention. In addition Ms. Pham submitted a written letter from Ms. Maria Carerra regarding the non-aggressive nature of ‘Tofu’. testimony of Ms. Cuc Hoang, Witness, in opposition to the Designation stating there were mitigating factors to the attack such as witnessing the Appellant provide food to ‘Tofu’ in the past. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to affirm the Dangerous Dog Designation applied to ‘Tofu’ and pursuant to City of Kitchener By-law 2014-142, Section 33 (c), modified the requirements for keeping the Dangerous Dog. The modifications require the existing fence to be replaced with a 6’ fence along the rear; and, if a fence is not possible due to trees, to utilize a pen of at least 6’ feet in size and height. The dog is to be muzzled and leashed at all times when off the property of the owner; and, until such time as the pen or fence is constructed, the dog should be supervised, leashed and muzzled while in the backyard. The Committee hereby recommends that Council affirm the Dangerous Dog Designation and assign the following modified requirements for the keeping of said Dangerous Dog: (a) The owner shall ensure that all conditions pertaining to the dog when it is off the property of the owner including any leashing and muzzling requirements are complied with in any City Off-Leash Park unless specified otherwise in this designation; (b) The owner shall ensure that the animal services provider is provided with the new address and telephone number of the owner within two working days of 4. - 2 moving the designated dog; (c) The owner shall 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; (d) the owner shall advise the animal services provider within two working days of the death of the designated dog; (e) the owner shall advise the animal services provider forthwith if the designated dog runs at large or has bitten or attacked any person or animal; (f) the owner shall provide a copy of this designation to any person who keeps or harbours the designated dog; (g) the owner shall 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; (h) the owner shall ensure that the designated dog has a current City dog licence; (i) the owner shall 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; (j) the owner shall ensure that the designated dog is kept, when it is on the lands and premises of the owner, confined: a. within the dwelling; least 6 feet in size b. in an outdoor pen that is at , secure and provides humane shelter to the satisfaction of the animal services provider; 6’ in height, c. in an area with a secure and adequate fence of at least 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 d. 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 leash, such leash 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); (k) the owner shall 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; (l) the owner shall ensure that the designated dog is kept under the effective control 4. - 3 of a person of at least sixteen years of age and under leash, such leash 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; (m)the owner shall ensure that the designated dog wears a securely attached muzzle that is satisfactory to the animal services provider at all times when it is off the owner’s property and not caged or otherwise penned or confined to the satisfaction of the animal service provider. (n) the owner shall 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; (o) the owner shall ensure that the designated dog is sterilized and shall provide proof satisfactory to the animal services provider that such procedure has been performed within 30 days of this designation becoming a confirmed designation; (p) the owner shall ensure that the designated dog is not kept or harboured in a multiple unit dwelling or lodging house and where the owner’s current dwelling is a multiple unit dwelling or lodging house the dog may be kept or harboured at other premises subject to all the conditions imposed on the keeping of the dog pursuant to this designation; (q) the owner shall 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. 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. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this report. 4. - 4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM - All those in attendance at the April 25, 2016 Hearing, were advised of the Committee’s decision and that it would be considered at the June 6, 2016 Council meeting. In addition, a Notice of Decision was sent to the Appellant and the Respondents via registered mail on April 28, 2016; thereby, providing notification 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 & Corporate Services 4. - 5