MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE Sitting as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE Sitting as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee"

Erick Foster
5 years ago
Views:

1 TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE Sitting as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee APPEAL OF A NOTICE TO MUZZLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BY-LAW RE AS AMENDED HEARD ON THE 16 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE MUNICIPAL OFFICES, 111 SANDIFORD DRIVE, STOUFFVILLE, ONTARIO L4A OZ8. Appellant: Ms Leanne R. Taylor Members in attendance: Shaen Armstrong, Carin Bacher (Chair), Thomas Glassford, Erik Gordon, Thomas E. Winters Secretary: Investigating Officers: Town Staff in attendance: Gillian Angus-Traill Senior By-law Officer Nancy Cronsberry By-law Officer Teresa Hector, Municipal Animal Control Officer Denise Stephenson Prior Chair, Thomas Glassford called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and requested the committee nominate a Chair and Recording Secretary for this meeting: MOVED by Erik Gordon SECONDED by Shaen Armstrong THAT Carin Bacher be nominated to Chair the committee for this meeting. MOVED by Thomas Glassford SECONDED by Shaen Armstrong THAT Gillian Angus-Trail! be nominated as Recording Secretary for this meeting.

2 Page 2 MOVED by Thomas E. Winters SECONDED by Thomas Glassford THAT the modified Schedule B for the Order to Comply be attached to the June 22, 2011 Appeals Committee minutes; AND THAT the June 22, 2011 Appeals Committee minutes be adopted as amended. The Chair, Carin Bacher, introduced the Appeals Committee members, sitting as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee. The Chair gave an explanation of the process to be followed with respect to this appeal of the Notice to Muzzle issued by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville on October 5, 2011 to Leanne Taylor. The Chair clarified that the committee may confirm, modify or rescind the Notice. Presentation of the Investigating Officers Senior By-law Officer Nancy Cronsberry introduced Municipal Animal Control Officer Denise Stephenson. Officer Cronsberry explained the process leading up to this appeal: A "Notice to Muzzle" dated October 5, 2011 was issued to Leanne Taylor, in accordance with By-law RE as amended, regarding her dog Bandit. Ms Taylor submitted a request, received by the Town on October 25, 2011, to appeal the Notice. A meeting was arranged with the Appeals Committee to sit as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee for a meeting at 7:00 p.m. and notice was given. Officer Cronsberry stated the case history as follows: September 13, 2011 Municipal Animal Control Officer Denise Stephenson completed an "Animal Control Call Sheet" having received a call regarding an incident that occurred on Saturday September 10, The call was from the person who had allegedly sustained the vicious dog bite (the witness). Photographs were taken of the puncture mark. October 3, 2011 Senior By-law Officer Nancy Cronsberry received a "Declaration Regarding a Vicious Dog" from the witness. October 5, 2011 Senior By-law Officer Nancy Cronsberry served the "Notice to Muzzle" to Ms Taylor

3 November 16,2011 Page 3 October 25, 2011 Appeals Committee Secretary Gillian Angus-Traill received a formal request to appeal the Notice to Muzzle from Ms Taylor. A meeting was arranged with the Appeals Committee to sit as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee for a meeting at 7:00 p.m. and notice was given. Officer Cronsberry reviewed the content of the handout: By-law RE being a by-law to provide for the muzzling of vicious dogs, specifically identifying the definition 1 (c) "bite" and 2 (a) and (b) empowering them to declare a dog as vicious and outlining the process to be followed. Notice to Muzzle Request for appeal Dog Tag application for Bandit Declaration regarding vicious dog including follow up and doctor's report Animal Control Call sheet Pictures of the bite puncture mark Pictures of location where incident occurred Officer Cronsberry presented her understanding of the incident. The witness was walking her small dog "Bailey" on when a shepherd type dog "Bandit" left a property on the west side of Bandit approached the witness whose dog was now hiding behind her. Bandit lunged at the witness ripping her pants and biting her. The witness spoke with the owner of the dog and her husband. Animal Control was contacted and took photos of the witness's leg. By-law followed up and looked at the property noting there is no physical fencing but Bandit does wear an electric fence collar with the property having invisible fencing. Bandit had been able to get through the invisible fencing to approach the witness and her dog. Presentation of the Appellant Ms Taylor showed a photo of her dog Bandit. Ms Taylor identified some inconsistencies and lack of attention to detail in the paperwork presented, such as misquoted sections of the by-law on the Notice to Muzzle and inconsistent dates. Officer Cronsberry apologised for the typographical errors and the proceeding continued. Ms Taylor presented her understanding of the incident. Ms. Taylor was outside on the deck when the incident occurred. Ms Taylor acknowledged that Bandit had broken through the invisible fence but came back to her when he was called. Ms Taylor confirmed that the invisible fencing was malfunctioning and has since been fixed and said that the fencing will be monitored on a regular basis going forward. The fence and Bandit have been on the property for 7 years without incident. Ms Taylor maintains the dog is playful but would not bite. Ms Taylor's husband said he talked with the witness and that she indicated that she was scratched but ok. The Taylors thought nothing more about the incident until receiving the Notice to Muzzle.

4 Page 4 Ms Taylor challenges that the mark on the witness's leg is a scratch not a bite and presented the committee with a letter from a doctor saying that the photos were inconclusive as to whether the mark was a dog bite. Ms Taylor also presented the committee with photos of dog bites from the internet claiming that a dog bite would cause more bruising and multiple marks or puncture wounds. Ms Taylor challenged the Markham Stouffville Hospital, Uxbridge Site emergency records presented by the witness for claiming that the wound was a bite. Ms Taylor does not feel that her dog is vicious. Ms Taylor's husband commented that he was inside the house when the incident occurred, he heard his wife yell at the dog but no barking or growling. He said that he went outside stood on the porch and asked if the witness was ok, he heard her say that the dog scratched her. He indicated that he did not want to say any more to the witness as he didn't want to be seen as influencing whether or not she reported the incident. Presentation of the Witness The witness denied saying that the dog scratched her and stressed that the dog did growl, went for her dog then bit her tearing a chunk out of her pants. The witness also confirmed that it was the ER Doctor that diagnosed the puncture wound as a dog bite. The witness presented her understanding of the incident. She was walking on with her 61b dog Bailey. A large dog on the property to her left was jumping and acting as if it was hitting an invisible fence. The large dog lunged off the property, bared teeth, growled and then bit her. A woman on the property took the large dog into the house. A man appeared from the back of the property and asked if she was ok. She replied no, your dog bit me, look at my pants & leg but the man left. At home she decided to call animal control, talked to the answering service as it was after 5, they said the concern would be referred to an officer in Stouffville. Her husband recommended that she see a doctor. They went to the hospital in Uxbridge. The witness stated that she is concerned about the possible harm to a small child from an incident that this, given that she is 5'10" and the dog bit her mid thigh. Questions from committee The committee ask questions and requested clarification from By-law, the appellant and the witness. Officer Cronsberry confirmed that an invisible fence is not acceptable fencing for the Notice to Muzzle and that the "method of restraining dog" in the Notice to Muzzle comes directly from by-law RE as amended. In more severe circumstances By-law can act under the Dog Owners Liability Act versus the Town By-law. Once a dog is identified as vicious, this stays with the dog for life, there is no discretion for the issuing officer to rescind or change the notice and once the committee make their decision there is no appeal process.

5 Page 5 Municipal Animal Control Officer Denise Stephenson stated that from her experience she has found that if the motivation is strong enough many dogs will go through the invisible fence to get to what is motivating them on the other side. Officer Cronsberry confirmed that no Consent Order was discussed with the owner, primarily due to no physical fencing on the property. The appellant voiced concern with her dog being labelled vicious and that in 7 years the dog has not gone through the fence, it was just a glitch in the fence. Concern that a fence would cut off back yard, as much of the yard is a public road allowance, but with the invisible fencing they can use the entire space. The appellant believes that Bandit did nip as a puppy playing but does not believe he has nipped since not even at the witness as she does not believe the single puncture wound is a bite. Municipal Animal Control Officer Denise Stephenson confirmed that many things affect the look of a bite and she has seen single puncture wounds that have definitely been from a dog bite. The witness stated that the dog was called off by the owner or the bite may have been more severe. The appellant admitted that Bandit being a b dog would scare a child as he scared the witness, being an adult, with the shock factor of the approach. The appellant confirmed that Bandit has been neutered and micro-chipped since he was a puppy and has lived on this property for 7 years. The appellant clarified that Bandit is generally nervous and reacts to strangers so the vet has previously recommended that he be walked with a muzzle to keep other dogs and strangers away from him as they are not /0 sure what Bandit would do if threatened. In general the dog's response is to back up and bark, he does tend to pace in the yard around the maple tree and if he gets too close to the invisible fence he tends to yelp and back off. The appellant stated that the fence was just not working that day, but it is now fixed and will be checked on a regular basis. The appellant confirmed that Bandit completed both private and group lessons through the Gemini training program stating he is clever and listens and did come back to the house when called after the incident. The appellant claimed to not have heard the witness say anything. The appellant confirmed that there is a set of mailboxes across from their property. The appellant confirmed that Bandit gets along with dogs but is high strung and is full of energy, bouncing to play, does not bark or growl at other dogs except when they walk he barks a little. She advised that there have been no other incidents of this nature involving Bandit. The appellant does not dispute that the incident happened, she just challenges whether the puncture wound is from a bite or a scratch from Bandit. She is not willing to accept that Bandit bit the witness as there is not /0 evidence and believes that the witness initially said it was a scratch.

6 Page 6 The witness clarified that she took the incident seriously, she was startled and surprised and saw the extent of the damage when she got home. She stated that the dog looked her in the eye and lunged at her with his mouth. Officer Cronsberry clarified that in order to issue a Notice of Muzzle the Town by-law states that there must be a puncture wound on the victim, the Dog Owners Liability Act can be followed even if there is no puncture wound. The appellant confirmed that she is not concerned for neighbouring children or her own children even when the neighbourhood kids play road hockey on the adjacent street to their property. The appellant confirmed that both her and her husband work out of the home and that while they are away from the house Bandit remains indoors. The witness confirmed that she lives about a 15 minute walk from the incident scene and has no connection with the family that own Bandit. The appellant requested that the committee drop the Notice of Muzzle completely and failing that requested that the 3'3" leash be changed to a 4' leash; the use of an invisible fence in conjunction with the muzzle be acceptable for the dog in the back yard and if they must build a fence that it be built on Town property. Members of the public No comments were received from members of the public. DELIBERATION The committee deliberated the orderin publicsession. DECISION The appellant and the witness were in attendance for the decision and an electronic copy of the decision was subsequently served to Ms Leanne Taylor on November 18, 2011 via . The Appeals Committee, sitting as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee, uphold the Notice to Muzzle issued by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville on October 5, 2011 to Leanne Taylor with the only exception being that section b) i) be amended to allow a maximum leash length of four (4) feet. Adjournment MOVED by Thomas E. Winters SECONDED by Shaen Armstrong THAT the hearing be adjourned at 8:37 p.m.

The Corporation of the Town of Essex. Appeal Hearing with Resped to a Notice to Muzzle

The Corporation of the Town of Essex Appeal Hearing with Resped to a Notice to Muzzle November 17, 2015 An Appeal Hearing with Respect to the Roelens Notice to Muzzle was held on Tuesday, November 17,