HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-2025-381 - Dog Designation Process EnhancementsStaff Reort � )
Community Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: October 20, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Gloria MacNeil, Director of Enforcement, 519-783-8516
PREPARED BY: Gloria MacNeil, Director of Enforcement, 519-783-8516
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward(s) All
DATE OF REPORT: August 29, 2025
REPORT NO.: CSD -2025-381
SUBJECT: Dog Designation Process Enhancements
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve the improvements to the dog designation process outlined in CSD -
2025 -381.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to review the conditions imposed on dog owners by the Dog
Designation Committee and identify opportunities for enhancement.
To improve public access to information by updating and streamlining website content
related to dog bite incidents.
To enhance the notification process following the designation of a dog, ensuring timely and
effective communication with all relevant parties.
BACKGROUND:
On August 25, 2025, Council passed a motion directing staff to investigate and report back on
several potential process enhancements to the dog designation process including but not limited
to:
• Notification from By-law Enforcement Staff to the Ward Councillor, Mayor, Office of Mayor
and Council staff when the Humane Society issues a "dangerous" or "prohibited" dog
order,
• Periodic reports from By-law Enforcement staff to Council on actions and investigations
undertaken by the Humane Society to ensure Owners of designated dogs are complying
with the designation requirements;
• Revising content on the city's website to clearly direct search inquiries on reporting
dangerous dogs to the Humane Society;
• Collaborating with the Humane Society on a process to share permitted information once
a complaint has been received, in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act; and,
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 23 of 46
• Legislative challenges with the Dog Owners Liability Act (DOLA) that would improve the
city's ability to obtain an interim order permitting the Humane Society to hold a dog seized
under a warrant in a pound until the DOLA hearing."
BACKGROUND:
The City of Kitchener contracts The Humane Society of Kitchener Waterloo and Stratford Perth
to investigate and enforce all provisions of the Dog Designations By-law, Chapter 420 and the
Responsible Dog Ownership By-law, Chapter 421, and to take appropriate action including
enforcement of the by-law.
The Humane Society on behalf of the City of Kitchener, may on their own initiative or as the
result of a complaint received by a resident, conduct an inquiry/investigation into whether a dog
should be designated a potentially dangerous dog, a dangerous dog, a restricted dog, or a
prohibited dog, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog fits the definition.
Designations can include additional requirements or terms on the dog owner which address
public safety, and which must be adhered to, including muzzling the dog when off the property,
ensuring adequate fencing around the property, notification of moving, etc. It is important to note
that not all dog designations are appealed or come before the Dog Designation Committee.
When a designation is issued, the dog owner has five working days to appeal the designation.
The Dog Designation/Animal Designation Committee, which is currently made up of three
Councillors, are responsible to consider, without bias, evidence provided at the appeal hearing,
and to make a decision to uphold, rescind, or alter the dog designation or conditions of the dog
designation. The decision of the Committee is then forwarded to the first available Council
meeting for ratification. The dog owner/appellant may appeal the decision of Council within 30
days through a Judicial Review.
When a dog is designated prohibited, the owner is required to surrender the dog to the Humane
Society within six working days or to provide proof satisfactory to the Humane Society that the
dog has been removed from the City to a location not prohibited by the Dog Owners' Liability
Act, or has been disposed of in a humane manner.
REPORT:
This report presents the findings from staff's review of the dog designation process along with
additional context and information related to the specific areas raised by City Council in its
August 25, 2025 motion.
1. Notification from By-law Enforcement Staff to the Ward Councillor, Mayor, Office of
Mayor and Council staff when the Humane Society issues a "dangerous" or
"prohibited" dog order:
Staff have met with the Humane Society and have no concerns with providing notification to
the ward Councillor, Mayor and Officer of Mayor and Council when a prohibited dog
designation occurs. Upon completion of an investigation whereby the Humane Society has
Page 24 of 46
designated a prohibited dog, they will notify the Director of By-law Enforcement and will
provide a summary of the investigation and reason for the designation. The Director of By-
law Enforcement will then send an email to the ward Councillor, Mayor, and Office of Mayor
and Council staff advising the particulars associated with the designation to inform them and
assist in responding to resident and media inquiries.
2. Periodic reports from By-law Enforcement staff to Council on actions and
investigations undertaken by the Humane Society to ensure Owners of designated
dogs are complying with the designation requirements:
Cases are investigated by the Humane Society and remain open and active as most
designations have conditions placed on the owner that are ongoing for the life of the dog.
The severity of the bite determines the frequency of how often Humane Society follows up
with the property, however all properties with conditions are inspected at least once per year
and properties with more severe bites are inspected more frequently.
The Humane Society will notify Legal Services once the conditions imposed on dangerous
or prohibited dogs have been satisfied. This may include, for example, confirmation that
fencing has been installed or that a dog has been neutered following a hearing. Legal
Services will also be advised when a prohibited dog has been surrendered in accordance
with the Committee's decision. Upon receiving this information, Legal staff will update the
Dog Designation Committee to ensure they are informed and to facilitate closure of the file.
3. Revising content on the city's website to clearly direct search inquiries on reporting
dangerous dogs to the Humane Society:
Staff are currently working to enhance the City's webpage, making it easier for residents to
access information related to dog -bite incidents. Updates will include clear guidance on how
to report an incident, relevant contact information, and details on who to reach out to for
follow-up inquiries.
In addition, the Humane Society has updated its website to include a guide outlining what to
do if a dog bites a person or another animal. The guide provides contact details and
suggested information to include such as photos of injuries, medical documentation, and
other information that may support the investigation process.
4. Collaborating with the Humane Society on a process to share permitted information
once a complaint has been received, in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act:
While there is an active investigation, staff are limited in the information they can share
publicly. If there is a concern for public safety, a brief update may be provided to the area
Ward Councillor and the Mayor, outlining the nature of the situation.
Staff recognize that residents may become frustrated by the lack of publicly available
information. However, it is essential to ensure that any communication does not create bias,
particularly in cases where the dog owner may appeal the designation. Additionally, staff
Page 25 of 46
must be mindful of legal privacy considerations and avoid disclosing personal information
about individuals.
In the early stages of an investigation, the only update that may be provided is confirmation
that an incident has occurred and that it is under active investigation.
5. Legislative challenges with the Dog Owners Liability Act (DOLA) that would improve
the city's ability to obtain an interim order permitting the Humane Society to hold a
dog seized under a warrant in a pound until the DOLA hearing:
The Dog Owners' Liability Act is provincial legislation governed by the Province of Ontario.
Any proposed amendments to this Act would require Council to formally advocate to the
provincial government.
Staff, in collaboration with the Humane Society, the Dog Designation Committee, and
Council, remain committed to enhancing processes related to dog bite incidents and
improving communication wherever possible.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
APPROVED BY: Michael May, DCAO
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment — COR -2025-111 — 2025 Dog Designation Appeal Committee Composition Review
Page 26 of 46
Staff Report
J
IKgc.;i' r� R
Corporate Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Amanda Fusco, Director, Legislated Services/City Clerk, 519-904-1402
PREPARED BY: Dianna Saunderson, Manager, Council and Committee Services /
Deputy Clerk, 519-904-1410
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: February 24, 2025
REPORT NO.: COR -2025-111
SUBJECT: 2025 Dog Designation Appeal Committee Composition Review
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to proceed with as the preferred committee
structure/composition as outlined in Corporate Services Department report COR -2025-
111; and further,
That staff be directed to prepare the necessary council policy or by-law to implement the
preferred committee structure/composition, prior to June 2025 for Council's
consideration.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review the current composition of the Animal Designation
Appeal Committee and the Dog Designation Appeal Committee.
• The Animal Designation Appeal Committee and the Dog Designation Appeal Committee
convene hearings and make recommendations to Council on dog designations appeals and
restricted animal exemption requests (as outlined in Chapter 408 (Animal Regulation) and
Chapter 420 (Dog - Designation) and Chapter 421 (Dog - Responsible Ownership) of the
City of Kitchener Municipal Code).
• Dog Designation Committee and Animal Designation Appeals generally are infrequent.
• The Dog Designation Committee is responsible for hearing and deciding appeals against
decisions made by The Humane Society of Kitchener Waterloo and Stratford Perth to
designate a dog as dangerous or restricted.
• The Animal Designation Appeal Committee is responsible for rendering decisions related
amending the restricted/prohibited list of animals as outlined within the By-law.
BACKGROUND:
The City currently has five Quasi -Judicial Committees/Tribunals of which two meet regularly;
Committee of Adjustment and Property Standards, and three meet infrequently; the Licensing
Appeal Tribunal, the Animal Designation Appeal Committee and Dog Designation Appeal
Committee. All five of the Quasi -Judicial Committees render decisions based on various
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 27 of 46
legislation, specifically the Statutory Powers of Procedure Act, Planning Act, Building Code and
Municipal Act. The term "quasi-judicial tribunal" refers to a body created by law with a mandate
to settle matters in an impartial manner by applying rules of law without regard for expediency
or administrative policy. The Committee of Adjustment and Property Standards Appeal
Committee render final decisions on behalf of the City and their appeal mechanisms are to the
Ontario Land Tribunal or Superior Court. Decisions made by the Licensing Appeal Tribunal,
Animal Designation Appeal Committee and Dog Designation Appeal Committee are ratified by
Council.
Dog Designation/Animal Designation Appeal Committee
The Dog Designation/Animal Designation Appeal Committee is made up of three Councillors
(currently two appointed members and two alternate members). The Committee's responsibility
is to consider, without bias, evidence provided at the appeal hearing, and make a decision to
uphold, rescind, or alter the dog designation or conditions of the dog designation. The decision
of the Committee is forwarded to the first available Council meeting for ratification.
Typically, the Committee convenes approximately four meetings each year, and currently there
is no associated fee for pursuing an appeal. Since 2017, there have been 32 (thirty-two) dog
designation appeals and 0 (zero) animal designation appeals, on average the Tribunal meets 5
times. It is important to note that the same members who serve on the Dog Designation Appeal
Committee also serve on Council for ratification of the decision.
REPORT:
At Special Council meeting earlier this year, Council considered Council and Committee
appointments and directed staff to review the current committee composition of the Dog
Designation/Animal Designation Appeal Committee, noting previously the Committee had an
individual that was a Canadian Kennel Club member who has since resigned and since that time
there have been challenges conducting the hearings from an adjudicative or animal behaviourist
perspective.
The existing structure for the Dog Designation/Animal Designation Appeal Committee also
presents further challenges, specifically related to matters including but not limited to: hearing
scheduling, expertise in animal behaviour, expertise in by-law interpretation and establishing
enforceable decisions/conditions that are within the authority of the Committee, familiarity with
the provisions in the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act, procedural fairness and potentially
bias. In some instances, members of Council hear from constituents related to the incidents,
which could also result in concerns about impartiality.
Based on the current practice, Dog designation appeals are supposed to be scheduled for
consideration by the Committee within 45 days and are usually held on the same day as Council.
The current schedule has also become problematic as there have been a number of other priority
meetings that identified for similar scheduling, resulting in the need to find alternative dates for
the Committee to meet, often beyond the preferred guidelines of 45 days. In 2023 and 2024
there were 10 hearings scheduled and of those hearings; none of which were within the preferred
45 -day timeline, and only three of the meetings proposed on the 2024 schedule were able to be
maintained on the Monday morning of Council.
Page 28 of 46
Additionally, the Committee composition previously included one appointment reserved for an
individual who was a member of the Canadian Kennel Club, to bring experience with dog/animal
behaviour to the Committee. The appointment of the member was ad hoc in nature as the By-
law previously identified the appointment of a Canadian Kennel Club member but did not require
appointment of a specific individual. That requirement was removed from the By-law when it was
revised in 2014. Since that revision, Council members make up the entirety of the Committee.
While the Dog Designation/Animal Designation Appeal Committee meetings are public meetings
and are open to the public to attend, there is discretion taken with meeting records due to the
sensitive nature of the matters being discussed. Following the Committee meeting, the decision
of the Committee is forwarded to the next available Council meeting for ratification. Additionally,
the Committees receive a copy of the meeting minutes, as well as a public staff report, outlining
the Committee's recommendation the Committee and a summary of the hearing proceedings.
Council at their meeting, then consider the Committee's decision and can ratify or amend the
decision. By virtue of the matter being referred to the Council meeting, procedurally, there is
nothing procedurally to prevent parties to the hearing appearing as delegates to address Council
and potentially seek changes to the Committee's recommendation. For delegations, this step
can be very confusing, as the Dog Appeal hearing is conducted in an informal court like fashion,
whereas delegating at Council, delegations are subject to the procedural by-law time allocation
of 5 -minutes. Since 2017, Council has considered all decisions of the Committee and have
approved all decisions as recommended, save and except for one, that resulted in an
amendment to the deadline for spay / neutering. In hopes to sway Council to amend the
Committee's decision, delegations typically share a significant amount of personal information
during the Council meeting, which would be available in the Council meeting minutes and on the
archived livestream.
A summary of the current process for Dog Designation Appeal Committee is below:
Current Process
1.
Appeal the Dog Designation
2.
Attend Dog Designation Appeal Hearing — Committee renders a
decision
3.
Appellant may attend Council to address the Committee decision
4.
Council renders a decision
5.
Appellant may appeal a Council decision through Judicial Review
Staff are proposing three options to amend the current structure of the Dog Designation/Animal
Designation Appeal Committee:
Option 1: Implement a Hearing Officer as the Animal Designation Appeal Committee, the
Dog Designation Committee
A hearing officer could be appointed as the Animal and Dog Designation Appeal Committee for
the purpose of dealing with any dog or animal designation appeals. The Hearing Officer would
be an independent, impartial individual who is trained in the relevant legal and procedural
matters. They would hear evidence, make findings of fact, issue their own procedural rulings as
required and issue a decision. The decision of the Hearing Officer would be final and would not
come to Council for ratification. Staff propose that the already approved Hearing Officer
Page 29 of 46
contracted by By-law Enforcement for the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS)
could be utilized on an ad hoc basis, for any dog and/or animal appeal requests.
This proposed process would be similar to the City of Kitchener's By-law Enforcement's use of
the Hearing Officer through AMPS which transfers parking disputes from the courtroom to the
municipality. This has resulted in a streamlined process for both staff and the citizens and has
reduced the administrative impact on the court system. There are numerous advantages to
aligning both the animal and dog designation appeals with AMPS, these benefits include:
• Impartiality: A Hearing Officer is a neutral third -party who is not involved in the
enforcement or regulatory process. They can provide an objective perspective on the
case, ensuring fairness in the decision-making process.
• Expertise: A Hearing Officer would have experience in the adjudication process and by-
law interpretation which would add fairness and consistency to the decision-making
process.
• Red -Tape Reduction: The use of a Hearing Officer will expedite the timing and decision-
making process, while also ensuring a fair and just hearing for the Appellant.
• Timeliness: Hearing Officers are currently scheduled two times a month for current
business, including Dog Designation/Animal Designation appeals to that schedule would
help to improve the timeliness of their consideration.
• Efficiency: Utilizing a Hearing Officer would allow Council members to save valuable
time and resources that would otherwise have been allocated towards participation in the
tribunal process. Council's involvement in the decision-making process is minimized,
allowing them to focus on other constituent matters. The appeal process would also offer
an online option, facilitated by the Hearing Officer, to provide greater convenience for the
person requesting the appeal.
• Transparency: The use of a Hearing Officer can provide greater transparency in the
decision-making process, as the hearing and the decision are usually public. This can
increase confidence in the regulatory system and ensure accountability.
By utilizing a Hearing Officer, appeals can be resolved in a manner that is both fair and efficient
and is consistent with the way other city by-laws are handled under AMPS.
Option 1 — Hearing Officer - Process
1. Appeal the Dog Designation or Restricted Animal request
2. Attend Dog Designation Appeal Hearing — Hearing Officer renders
a decision
3. Appellant may appeal a Hearing Officer decision through Judicial
Review
This option is being used currently by other municipalities including but not limited to Richmond
Hill and London.
Option 2: Amend the structure of the Animal and Dog Designation Appeal Committee to
have a total of 5 members, 3 members with expertise in adjudication and/or animal/dog
behaviour expertise and 2 members of Council
Page 30 of 46
The Committee could operate in a similar fashion as it is currently operating to date, but rather
than being comprised solely of members of Council, staff could be directed to build a Terms of
Reference for the Committee, that would confirm the operational function of the Committee and
confirm the membership of the Committee and preferred expertise. The Terms of Reference
would be brought back to Council for further consideration and once approved, the hearings
could be scheduled to always ensure that there is one Council member and one animal
behaviourist in attendance at each meeting.
This option would still result in the Committee's decision being forwarded to the next available
Council meeting for ratification. For individuals that decide to delegate at Council meetings, it
typically results in sharing information beyond what was presented during the hearing that
hearing that may be sensitive in nature, in a public forum. Council since 2017 ratified all but one
decision of the Committee unchanged. Following Council's ratification of the decision, the
Appellant would have the opportunity to appeal Council's decision to Divisional Court if they
were unsatisfied.
Option 2 — Councillor & Expert Appeal Committee - Process
1.
Appeal the Dog Designation
2.
Attend Dog Designation Appeal Hearing — Committee renders a
decision
3.
Appellants may attend Council to address the Committee decision
4.
Council renders a decision
5.
Appellant may appeal a Council decision through Judicial Review
Option 3: Amend the structure of the Animal and Dog Designation Appeal Committee to
have a total of 5 members who are proposed to be all citizen members with adjudication
and/or animal/dog behaviour expertise
The Committee could operate in a similar fashion as it is currently operating to date, but rather
than being comprised members of Council, staff could be directed to build a Terms of Reference
for the Committee, that would confirm the operational function of the Committee and would
confirm the membership of the Committee and preferred expertise. The Terms of Reference
would be brought back to Council for further consideration and once approved, the hearings
could be scheduled.
This option would still result in the Committee's decision being forwarded to the next available
Council meeting for ratification. For individuals that decide to delegate at Council meetings, it
typically results in sharing information beyond what was presented during the hearing that may
be sensitive in nature, in a public forum. Council since 2017 ratified all but one decision of the
Committee unchanged. Following Council's ratification of the decision, the Appellant would have
the opportunity to appeal Council's decision to the Divisional Court if they were unsatisfied.
While staff are supportive of all three options, it would be staff's recommendation that the Dog
Designation Appeal Committee structure be replaced with a Hearing Officer, given the ability to
expedite the timing and decision-making process, while also ensuring a fair and just hearing for
the Appellant. Pending Council's decision, staff will continue to seek opportunities to improve
the administration of the Committee and report back to Council where additional approvals may
be required.
Page 31 of 46
Option 3 — Citizen Experts Appeal Committee - Process
1.
Appeal the Dog Designation
2.
Attend Dog Designation Appeal Hearing — Committee renders a
decision
3.
Appellants may attend Council to address the Committee decision
4.
Council renders a decision
5.
Appellant may appeal a Council decision through Judicial Review
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There is an operating budget of $1,000.00 for the Dog Designation/Animal Designation Appeal
Committee that is likely to cover the majority of the expenses related to the Committee. There is
no current fee to request an appeal, as the cost is mainly involved the time commitment of
various city staff, council members, and committee members. Pending Council's decision, staff
following the implementation of a potential new structure may seek to make a minor increase to
the budget in future years, or review whether a modest appeal fee should be imposed.
Previously, the budget was used to provide a honourarium to the Canadian Kennel Club member
prior to their resignation from the Committee.
Option 1: Implement a Hearing Officer as the Animal Designation Appeal Committee, the
Dog Designation Committee
The proposed recommendation is expected to have a negligible effect on the operating budget.
If a dog appeal is requested, the cost of a Hearing Officer would be $260 per half day or $520
per full day. There is currently no fee to request an appeal, as the cost is mainly involved the
time commitment of various city staff, council members, and committee members. The use of
the Hearing Officer would significantly reduce this temporal cost.
Option 2: Amend the structure of the Animal and Dog Designation Appeal Committee to
have a total of 5 members, 3 members with adjudication and/or animal/dog behaviour
expertise and 2 members of Council AND Option 3: Amend the structure of the Animal
and Dog Designation Appeal Committee to have a total of 5 members who are proposed
to be all citizen members with adjudication and/or animal/dog behaviour expertise
The proposed recommendations to amend the committee composition to include citizen
members is expected to have a negligible effect on the operating budget. The Committee
currently has its own operating budget that is allocated $1,000 to cover honourariums. To ensure
the Committee is in line with the previously approved honourariums, it is recommended that any
citizen members scheduled to attend a meeting, be paid the same rate that is paid to members
of the Property Standards Committee, $125 Chair (s) and $100 Member (s).
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
Page 32 of 46
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter.
APPROVED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services
Page 33 of 46