COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

SERVICES COMMUNAUTAIRES ET DE PROTECTION

BY-LAW SERVICES

SERVICE DES RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX

1. animal control tribunal – appeal of muzzling order –
MS. SUSAN DECKER

TRIBUNAL DU CONTRÔLE DES ANIMAUX – APPEL D’UNE ORDONNANCE DE MUSELLEMENT – mADEMOISELLE SUSAN DECKER

ACS2006-CPS-BYL-0003

Mr. S. Huxley, Legal Counsel for the Chief License Inspector, began by introducing Ms. L. Anderson, Manager of Enforcement for By-law Services. He explained that Ms. Anderson was appearing on behalf of the Chief License Inspector and he reminded Committee that the onus was on the appellant to show cause as to why the muzzle order should be rescinded or modified.

Mr. Huxley noted that this matter related to a dog muzzle order issued to Ms. Susan Decker and he invited the appellant to come forward. Ms. Decker came forward, accompanied by her partner, Mark.

By way of background, Mr. Huxley explained that this muzzle order had been issued by By-law Services in relation to an incident that occurred on October 19, 2005 at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the vicinity of Bruyère Street near the Rideau River. He noted that the complainant was present and would be explaining what happened on that date. He advised Committee that he had spoken briefly with the appellant prior to the hearing commencement but that he did not know what they were seeking from this hearing. Therefore he suggested that be put on the record before proceeding any further.

Responding to questions from Chair Little in that regard, Ms. Decker advised that she was seeking to have the muzzle order lifted in its entirety but that, at the very least, she sought to have the requirements lifted while the dog is on her property.

For the appellant’s benefit, Chair Little explained the process following during meetings of the License Committee: the City presents its case and calls any witnesses it may have; the appellant has an opportunity to cross-examine each of the City’s witnesses; the appellant then has the opportunity to present his/her case and call any witnesses he/she may have; the City has an opportunity to cross-examine each of the appellant’s witnesses. He noted that at the end of each of those steps, Committee members could ask questions of either the witnesses, the appellant or the Chief License Inspector. After hearing all the evidence, the Committee would take a recess and then return with its decision.

Ms. Decker wondered whether this Committee’s decisions were final. Chair Little confirmed that they were. Mr. Huxley added that, other than a judicial review before the Courts, there was no right of appeal beyond this body.

Councillor Hunter posed questions, for clarification, with respect to what the appellant was appealing. Ms. Decker explained that, having spoken with a dog behaviourist, she had been advised that it was possible to do this in stages. She indicated the dog behaviourist had advised her to at least ask that the muzzle order be removed as it pertained to her property. Beyond that, she was seeking to have the order removed in general, though she did not contest the leashing order.

Chair Little clarified that in considering its decisions, the Committee had a range of options available to it; to maintain the muzzle order in its entirety, to rescind the order, or to modify it. He reminded the appellant that the onus was on her to show why the order should be lifted or modified.

Mr. Huxley advised that, given the nature of the attack, the Chief License Inspector was seeking to have the muzzle order maintained in its entirety. He explained that this matter pertained to a dog bite on a person. To relay the details of the incident, he called on the complainant to come forward.

Ms. Brigette Patricia Walenius came forward, confirmed her full name for the record, and was sworn-in by Chair Little prior to giving any testimony.

Mr. Huxley re-iterated that this matter pertained to an incident that took place on October 19, 2005 and that Ms. Walenius had been involved in it. Therefore, he asked her to explain what happened on that occasion.

Ms. Walenius explained that she was coming out of her home, at 318 Bruyère, going for a run. She ran to the park across the street, Bordeleau Park. There she encountered 2 dogs that were off-leash, her neighbour’s dog and another dog. Both dogs started running towards her. She started to panic and she asked the dogs’ owners to call their dogs back. She noted that there was no reaction, though she acknowledged that it all happened very quickly. She screamed, at which point both dogs jumped on her and her neighbour’s dog bit her on the back of her left thigh. She noted that there had been lots of blood and lots of bruising and she provided photographs of her injury, taken 2 days after the event. She explained that her roommate had taken the photos because By-law Services had been unable to. She indicated she had also brought the pants she had been wearing that day, which had been broken through by the dog bite. She noted that her neighbours had offered to pay for the pants, though she had yet to provide them with a receipt. She testified that she went to the hospital emergency room immediately following the incident where a doctor confirmed that the injury was a dog bite. She believed it had originally been alleged that it was a scratch. However, she felt anyone who had witnessed the incident would acknowledge that she was bitten. She noted that she was a runner and, as a result of the incident, she was no longer comfortable running by herself.

She advised that she did not harbour an ill-will towards her neighbours. She explained her only reservation pertained to public safety and she speculated as to what could have been the result had the dog bitten a child rather than an adult.

Responding to a series of questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Walenius described the dog as medium-sized, lean and blackish brown. She advised that she had never seen the dog before and she explained that the incident had taken place directly across the street from her home. She confirmed that she had attended and received medical attention but that no further medical attention had been needed beyond that. However, she explained that for a few days following the incident, it had been uncomfortable to sit down at work and that she had been unable to proceed with her regular workout schedule.

Mr. Huxley wondered whether Ms. Walenius had seen the dog since the incident and if so, whether it had been leashed and/or muzzled. She indicated that on January 11 or 12, 2006, she had encountered Mark and the dog as she walked home from work. She confirmed that on that occasion, the dog has been leashed but not muzzled.

Mr. Huxley advised that he had no further questions for this witness and responding to a question from Chair Little, Ms. Decker indicated she did not wish to cross-examine Ms. Walenius.

Councillor McRae noted that the complainant had described the incident as involving more than one dog. Therefore, she asked her to be more deliberate in describing what happened and to explain how she was sure that the appellant’s dog had bitten her rather than the other dog. Ms. Walenius confirmed that there were 2 dogs and 2 dog owners. The 2 dogs came running at her and one of them bit her. Immediately after the bite, the owner of the dog that bit her identified himself, gave her his telephone number and offered to pay for her pants, which the dog had punctured when it bit her.

Responding to a further question from Councillor McRae, Ms. Walenius testified that the other dog simply jumped on her. It did not bite or scratch her.

Councillor McRae discussed the issue of provocation, as outlined in the by-law, and she asked whether the complainant believed she had done anything, or whether the dog owners had done anything to provoke the dog into biting her. Ms. Walenius noted that dogs like running after people who are running. She remarked that they had already been in the park when she came into the park running. She speculated that perhaps the dog had seen this as something fun. She re-iterated that she just stopped, she was frightened, she called on the owners to call their dogs back and she screamed, at which point the dogs jumped on her.

Responding to comments from Councillor McRae with respect to the intent of her previous question, Ms. Walenius maintained that she had not done anything to attract the dogs. In fact, she explained that, as a general rule, she tries to avoid dogs.

In response to further questions from Councillor McRae, Ms. Walenius advised that she had not returned to that park to run since the incident. She explained that she belonged to a running group and that she now only ran with the group. She no longer ran alone.

Councillor Hunter requested clarification on earlier testimony with respect to their being no reaction when she asked the owners to call the dogs back. Ms. Walenius explained that when she asked the owners to call their dogs back, they did not give a command. She stated that she did not appreciate their non-reaction. However, she acknowledged that it all happened very fast and that they may not have had time to react.

Mr. Huxley indicated he had no further witnesses or evidence on behalf of the Chief License Inspector. However, he informed Committee that the park in question was an off-leash park.

Chair Little invited the appellant to present her case. Ms. Decker moved to the witness seat and was sworn-in prior to giving any testimony.

Ms. Decker began by clarifying that, prior to discussing this matter with Ms. Cheryl Smith, a dog behaviourist, she had been unaware that her dog had to be muzzled even when it was on her property. She explained that when the complainant encountered her partner and the dog in January, they had been in their driveway. She acknowledged that the dog had not been muzzled at that time, but she re-iterated that she had been unaware of the requirement for muzzling on their property. Ms. Decker indicated that she was not present at the time of the incident but that, from what she had heard, the complainant had been more animated than what was warranted. She acknowledged the complainant’s fear. However, in terms of provocation, she speculated that the complainant’s level of agitation could have alerted the dogs that something was amiss. That being said, Ms. Decker stated emphatically that she and her partner took this matter very seriously and that she was not seeking to justify the dog’s actions.

In response to a question from Chair Little, Ms. Decker advised that she was not prepared to call any witnesses on her behalf because she was previously unaware that she could do so as part of these proceedings.

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor McRae, Ms. Decker advised: that the dog was 2 years old; that it had been less than 2 years old at the time of the incident; and that, as a puppy, it had participated in, and completed a course in obedience training.

Councillor McRae wondered whether the appellant had taken the dog for any kind of remedial training since the incident. Ms. Decker explained that after the incident, she was so upset that she called her veterinarian because she considered having the dog destroyed. Her veterinarian felt she may be over-reacting and recommended that she contact the dog behaviourist, Ms. Smith. In the meantime, she spoke to another dog behaviourist, who she contacted through a mutual friend.

He believed the dog was very reactive and had over-reacted to the situation or misinterpreted the situation as being threatening. Again, Ms. Decker stated emphatically that she did not seek to make excuses for her dog’s actions. She advised that the aforementioned behaviourist did not have time to meet with them in person but that she had made an appointment with Ms. Smith, though it had yet to take place.

Councillor McRae inquired as to the dog’s breed. Ms. Decker testified that the dog was a mixed breed and that, although she was unsure of the mix, she believed it had some Irish Setter, some Border Collie and possibly some Greyhound.

Responding to further questions from Councillor McRae, Ms. Decker stated that the dog had never bitten anyone before, or had it ever jumped on anyone or shown any signs of aggression. She explained that this was her third dog and she maintained that the last thing she wanted was a dog that bit. She indicated this situation had been a nightmare for her and that she felt awful when she saw the pictures of Ms. Walenius’ injury. She confirmed that her backyard was entirely fenced, that the fence surrounding was 6 feet high and that it was completely secure; no one could get in nor could the dog get out.

Mr. Huxley wondered whether the appellant had purchased a muzzle for the dog and he referenced earlier testimony with respect to the complainant encountering the dog in January, at which time it had not been muzzled. Ms. Decker confirmed that she had purchased a muzzle for the dog and she re-iterated that, until she discussed the matter with Ms. Smith, she had been unaware that the dog had to be muzzled while on her property.

In closing, Mr. Huxley asked that the muzzle order and leashing requirements be upheld when the dog is off the owner’s property. He re-iterated the circumstances of the incident, whereby a member of the public was bitten while trying to enjoy a City owned park. He maintained that the purpose of the by-law was to avoid such incidences. With respect to on-property, he submitted that, should Committee decide to rescind that part of the muzzle order, it should be on the condition that the fencing and gating requirements are to the satisfaction of the Chief License Inspector.

After considering the evidence presented to them, the Committee rendered the following decision.

Decision:

The License Committee unanimously agrees to amend the muzzle order as follows:

• That the muzzling requirement be lifted when the dog is confined to the owner’s backyard, provided that the fencing is to the satisfaction of the Chief License Inspector;

• That when the dog is in an off-leash park, the owner not be required to keep it on a leash;

• That the dog be muzzled at all times when off the owner’s property; and

• That should the owner decide to take the dog for obedience training, a further review of the muzzle order could be requested after completion of that training.

2. animal control tribunal – appeal of muzzling order –
MR. TIM STRTAK

TRIBUNAL DU CONTRÔLE DES ANIMAUX – APPEL D’UNE ORDONNANCE DE MUSELLEMENT – mONSIEUR TIM STRTAK

ACS2006-CPS-BYL-0004

Mr. Huxley advised that this matter related to a dog bite incident that occurred on November 29, 2005 at the residence at 4741 Northwoods where a person was bitten in the leg. The incident was investigated by By-law Enforcement Officer S. Sadler. Before proceeding, Mr. Huxley asked for confirmation from the appellant with respect to what aspects of the muzzle order he was seeking to appeal.

Mr. Strtak indicated that he wished to appeal the entire order, muzzling and leashing requirements.

Mr. Huxley explained that the complainant in this matter was not present and would therefore not be able to testify. However, he indicated that the investigating officer would be able to relay the circumstances of the attack. He called By-law Enforcement Officer S. Sadler as a witness for the Chief License Inspector.

Ms. Sadler came forward and was sworn in prior to giving any testimony.

In response to a question from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Sadler confirmed that she was the investigating officer in relation to the matter before Committee.

Mr. Huxley asked the witness to relay the circumstances of her investigation and her findings. Ms. Sadler explained that the dog owner, his mother and the complainant were all neighbours, with the dog owner’s mother living in the home between those of appellant and the complainant and she advised that the dog bite incident occurred at the home of the appellant’s mother. From her understanding of the circumstances, the dog owner was not present when the bite occurred inside his mother’s house. He had been working late and his mother was looking after his dogs. The complainant entered the residence to use the telephone because his own telephone was not working and he needed to call Bell Canada. When the appellant’s mother left the room, the dog, which had been under the table, came out from under the table and bit the complainant on the back of the leg. She advised that at the time of the incident, the dog’s vaccinations were not up to date but that the dog had been cleared by Public Health. She advised that when she asked to see the dog on the night of the incident, her request was denied.

She relayed to Committee what the dog owner had indicated to her: that the dog was not socialized with other people; that it was not comfortable around strangers; that it had not undergone formal obedience training; that it did not get walked or exercised out in public; and that therefore, the owner felt the muzzle order was not appropriate.

Based on the last statements, Mr. Huxley wondered what the officer’s concerns had been in issuing the muzzle order. Ms. Sadler explained that even though the bite incident had occurred inside the appellant’s mother’s home, it was obvious that the dog frequented both properties on a regular basis. She was therefore concerned that the dog may not be able to distinguish which home it is protecting or that it might escape its owner’s control. She maintained that the purpose of the by-law was to protect public health and safety.

Responding to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Sadler indicated she did not believe this dog was a guard dog. She believed it was a family pet. She confirmed that the complainant’s entry into the appellant’s mother’s home was lawful in that he had been invited in to use the telephone. She advised that the complainant had sustained an injury approximately one inch long on the outside of his calf, closer to the knee than the ankle, and that he had visited his family doctor the following day as a result of the incident.

Mr. Huxley circulated photographs of the injury, taken by Ms. Sadler on the night of the incident.

Following Mr. Huxley’s questioning of the witness, Chair Little asked whether the appellant had any questions. Mr. Strtak declined to cross-examine Ms. Sadler.

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor McRae, Ms. Sadler explained that it was normal for an investigating officer to visit a dog owner’s residence to speak to them and to see the dog prior to laying any charges. She confirmed that seeing the dog allowed them to get a sense of whether or not it would be appropriate to use their discretion with respect to the laying of charges. She noted that in this case, because the incident happened inside the residence rather than off the property or in a public area, a charge was not issued. However, a muzzle order was issued in order to protect against any future incident. She re-iterated that she had not been allowed to see the dog in question, that the incident had occurred when a neighbour entered the appellant’s mother’s home to use the telephone, and that the attack was unprovoked; the dog came out from under the table and bit the complainant.

In response to further questions from Councillor McRae, Ms. Sadler confirmed that, given the unpredictable nature of this attack, she was concerned that this dog could randomly attack someone in public or that it could attack someone visiting the owner’s home in the line of duty; for example, a utility worker visiting the property to get a meter reading. She advised that, in her 14 years working as a By-law Enforcement Officer, she had never before been denied an opportunity to see a dog in the course of investigating an incident.

She stressed the importance of this aspect of the process in order to allow the investigating officer an opportunity to assess the dog and get a sense of how it reacts to strangers. She re-iterated that on the night of the incident, when she visited the appellant’s home, he indicated to her that his dog was not comfortable around strangers and that it would not be appropriate for her to see the dog.

If the dog is so uncomfortable around strangers, Councillor McRae wondered why the appellant’s mother had allowed the complainant into the home while the dog was under the table. Ms. Sadler explained that when asked the question, the appellant’s mother had indicated that she did not realize the dog would react in such a way.

Councillor Hunter wondered if there was any way of being assured that the injury on the victim’s leg was a bite and not a claw mark. Ms. Sadler acknowledged that, based on the pictures, it could be judged as either. However, she referenced the by-law’s definition of a bite or an attack, which speaks to the skin being broken. Furthermore, she testified that when she interviewed the complainant, she asked him specifically whether the dog had bitten him or scratch him. The complainant maintained that he had been bitten.

Mr. Huxley indicated he had no further witnesses or evidence on behalf of the Chief License Inspector.

Chair Little invited the appellant to present his case. Mr. Strtak moved to the witness seat and was sworn-in prior to giving any testimony.

Mr. Strtak began by explaining that he and his mother own 4 properties in a row, with a total frontage of approximately 400 feet. He indicated that the dog bite occurred inside his mother’s residence. His dog was there because he had been working late and his mother had been looking after the dogs so that they would not be unattended for 12 to 14 hours. He noted the references made to the dog being under the table and the suggestion that the dog had been “hiding” there. He explained that the dog was laying there because his mother had been sitting at the table having dinner. He noted that there were 4 dogs in the residence at the time and that they all like hanging out with people. They are only uncomfortable with strangers. When the neighbour came to the house to use the phone, the 7-year old female German Sheppard, which had never met this neighbour before, came out from under the table and gave the neighbour a bite or scratch on the back of the leg. He noted that there was no shake in the bite and there were no other signs of aggression. It was just a quick snap and go, after which the dog went and hid. Therefore, Mr. Strtak believed it was just a fear bite and that there was no mal intent behind it.

Mr. Strtak acknowledged that he had indicated the dog was not friendly around strangers. However, he maintained that on the night of the incident, he had denied officer Sadler’s request to see the dog because his girlfriend and her 2 children were sleeping in the house and he was afraid that the dogs would react to officer Sadler’s uniform by barking, which would have awakened the family.

He noted when officer Sadler visited his home again on the next night, she did not ask to see the dog because on that occasion, he would have been more than willing to allow it. He maintained his denial of her request on the night of the incident was in no way to suggest that he was hiding something. He advised that the dog was absolutely fine with the family and he offered to show Committee pictures of the dog with the children. He explained that one of the reasons he wanted a German Sheppard is that they are territorial so they protect their home. He re-iterated that the dog is fine with him, with his mother and with the family living in his house. The dog is obedient.

In closing, Mr. Strtak stated his reasons for wanting the muzzle order and leashing requirement lifted. He lives in the country, on a very large property, and it does not make sense to muzzle the dog. The incident happened inside his mother’s residence when he was not present. He advised that measures had since been taken to ensure that it would not happen again. He explained that he normally takes his dogs out either at 5:00 a.m. or late in the evening when there is no one around and not likely to be anyone around. The dogs like to roll around and eat the grass and wearing a muzzle hinders their ability to have some fun outside.

Responding to questions from Mr. Huxley with respect to the measures taken to ensure the incident would not happen again, Mr. Strtak advised that he had discussed the matter with his mother and that she had agreed to put his dogs in another room should a stranger come to the door when she was looking after the dogs.

In response to a series of questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Strtak confirmed that he understood the requirements of the muzzle and leashing order and that he had purchased a muzzle and non-extension leash and complied with the order. He advised that his backyard was not fenced.

Councillor McRae asked Mr. Strtak to confirm what he was seeking from Committee. The appellant indicated that he sought to have the leashing and muzzling requirements lifted, on and off property. He stated that he never lets his dogs go off-leash on the road or during the day. However, he did not see the sense in leashing them when he takes them out in his backyard in the very early morning.

Responding to further questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Strtak indicated that this dog had never bitten before and he expressed his belief that it would not bite again because when of the circumstances of his property and the times of day when he takes the dogs out. He advised that on those occasions when he had encountered people on the road while accompanied by his dog, the dog has been very quiet, stayed by his side and wagged its tail. He stated that he had absolutely no concerns about this dog.

Councillor McRae expressed concerns with the fact that this dog had, unprovoked, bitten someone who had been invited into the house.

She also referenced officer Sadler’s comments about utility workers and expressed concerns over the possibility of the dog biting someone who visited the home on the course of their duties or of the dog biting someone on public property should be muzzle order be lifted. With respect to utility workers coming into his home or his mother’s home, Mr. Strtak argued that they do not typically enter a house unannounced and he and his mother have already established the practice of putting the dogs in another room when a stranger comes into their homes. With respect to utility workers visiting the outside of his home for a meter reading or other function, he noted that the dogs are never outside by themselves. He noted that there were no homes either in front of his property or behind it, therefore it is not possible for people to show up unannounced. Although he was not present at the time of the incident, Mr. Strtak speculated that when the complainant entered his mother’s home to use the phone, his own phone was not working so he may have been agitated and the dog would have reacted to that. He believed the incident had been the result of a unique set of circumstances and he was extremely confident that it would not happen again.

Responding to a question from Chair Little, Mr. Strtak clarified that he and his mother each owned 2 dogs. Therefore, when his mother looked after his dogs, there were 4 dogs present.

In closing, Mr. Strtak added that he had owned dogs since 1992 without any incidents. He explained one of the reasons he wanted the order lifted was that his dogs were with him all the time and in particular, this dog was his riding companion whenever he went into town. He felt it was unfortunate that the dog was being restricted from some of the things they both liked to do. He maintained that he was a responsible pet owner and that he would do whatever was required of him in order to have the muzzle order lifted.

After considering the evidence presented to them, the Committee rendered the following decision.

Decision:

The License Committee unanimously agrees to amend the muzzle order as follows:

• That the muzzling requirement be lifted while the dog is on the owner’s property or in the owner’s vehicle;

• That the muzzling order remain in effect while the dog is off the owner’s property but not in the owner’s vehicle; and

• That the owner have the opportunity to bring the matter back before the Committee for a further review in three (3) months.

In response to questions from Mr. Strtak for clarification, Chair Little re-iterated that when the dog was in the owner’s vehicle, it would not need to be muzzle, when it was on the owner’s property, it would not need to be muzzled or leashed, but that for the next three months, when the dog was being walked on public roadways, it would have to be leashed and muzzled. He explained that after 3 months, the appellant could bring the matter back to Committee for a further review.

3. ANIMAL CONTROL TRIBUNAL – APPEAL OF MUZZLING ORDER –
MS. DENISE DAMECOUR

TRIBUNAL DU CONTRÔLE DES ANIMAUX – APPEL D’UNE ORDONNANCE DE MUSELLEMENT – mADEMOISELLE DENISE DAMECOUR

ACS2006-CPS-BYL-0005

Mr. Huxley advised that this matter related to an appeal of a dog muzzle order that was issued to the appellant on September 30, 2005 following a dog bite incident that occurred on August 23, 2005 in the area of Thomas Dolan Parkway. The victim in this case was a child, Jake Leonard. The complainant’s father was present and Mr. Huxley called him as a witness for the Chief License Inspector.

The witness came forward, stated his full name as Tommy John Leonard, and was sworn-in prior to giving evidence.

Responding to a series of questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Leonard confirmed that he lived at 102 Grasshopper Lane, which is part of a 3-street subdivision in West Carleton, at the main intersection of Dunrobin Road and Thomas Dolan Parkway. He confirmed that this matter related to an incident that occurred on August 23, 2005 and that a second incident had occurred approximately 3 weeks later. The first incident had involved a dog bite on his 11-year old son, Jake. He confirmed that he was not present when Jake was bitten. He had gone for a bike ride and after returning home, Jake left for a subsequent bike ride. He was gone approximately 5 minutes. He explained that approximately 40 kids lived in their subdivision, that it was a family-oriented neighbourhood where everyone knew each other and that therefore, they were comfortable letting their kids ride their bikes around the subdivision and play at each other’s houses. He re-iterated that he had gone for a bike ride around the block and returned home, at which time his son’s friend had come over and the boys left together. Jake had been gone approximately 5 minutes when he returned home and told him that he had been riding down Porcupine and a dog had come out of the tall grass and latched onto his leg while he was riding his bicycle, at which point Jake returned home, told him what had happened. Mr. Leonard testified that at that time, he did not know who the dog’s owner was.

In response to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Leonard testified that Jake had been out riding with his friend, Andrew Graveline. As a result of the incident, Jake sustained an injury to his leg. The bite had pierced through his pants and into the lower part of his leg. At the time, Jake had been wearing skate-boarding pants.

Mr. Huxley asked what had been done with respect to treating Jake’s injury. Mr Leonard indicated that they put alcohol on it. He asked Jake what happened and he believed the dog owner had just yelled “sorry” and gone back into the house. They did not know the dog’s owner. They had no way of knowing whether the dog had been vaccinated. They called By-law Services. He did not want to go to the dog owner’s home because Jake had described the dog as a rottweiler.

Responding to questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Leonard re-iterated that the dog’s owner had called out “sorry” and he identified the dog owner as the appellant, Ms. Denise Damecour. He re-iterated that he did not want to visit the appellant’s house if she had a rottweiler that had just bitten his son. Therefore, he called By-law Services. Two by-law officers came to his home. They took pictures of Jake’s leg and left, saying they would go and find out if the dog had its papers. The officers later called and confirmed that the dog had been vaccinated. However, in the interim, he and his wife had called the Queensway-Carleton Hospital and had been told to simply monitor the injury for infection.

Mr. Huxley inquired as to Jake’s state of mind or emotional state when he came home from his bike ride on that day. Mr. Leonard advised that Jake was upset, sort of in shock because he could not believe what had just happened.

Mr. Huxley indicated that as part of their investigation, the by-law officers had interviewed Jake and his friend, Andrew Graveline, and had obtained signed witness statements from each of the boys. He introduced these documents as exhibits 1 and 2.

Mr. Huxley read Jake Leonard’s witness statement into the record: “On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at approximately 7:45 p.m. I was riding my bike with my friends. We were near the corner of Porcupine Trail and Thomas Dolan Parkway. All of a sudden, a dog came running out of the backyard of the older house near the intersection and ran up right behind the bike’s back tire and started biting my left calf. I kicked it away. It took about 3 seconds to get him off and the dog’s owner yelled over to me “sorry”. I then drove home where me and my parents noticed a bite mark “of a tooth” on my left calf and 2 little holes in my pants I was wearing.” He noted that the witness statement had been signed by Jake Leonard and written on his behalf in his words by his mother, Tracy Leonard. He then read Andrew Graveline’s witness statement into the record: “We were biking and we were going up to Pronto Meat Market and the dog came out of the bush, came on the road and bit Jake in the leg. We checked his leg and we went to his house and told his dad.”

Mr. Huxley asked whether that was the witness’ understand of what happened on the day in question. Mr. Leonard responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Huxley inquired as to the second incident, referenced earlier by the witness. Mr. Leonard advised that approximately 3 weeks after the bite on Jake, he had been walking his dog, a small Boston Terrier, on a retractable leash along the edge of a City park where children were playing on a play structure. He heard growling and looked around to find the same dog coming at him baring its teeth. This larger dog came up to him and backed up three times before finally turning and latching into his Boston Terrier and taking a chunk out of it. Mr. Leonard testified that he yelled over “put a damn leash on your dog”. He then realized that it was the dog owner’s daughter who responded to him “yes, there is a leash on the dog”. However, no one was holding the leash. At that point, Mr. Leonard testified that he returned home and called By-law Services again.

Two different by-law officers visited him home on this second occasion. He indicated he was surprised to see the dog in the park on the second occasion because, after the attack on Jake, he had been under the impression that a muzzle order had been issued; that the dog was required to be leashed and muzzled when off the owner’s property. He also assumed that the officers who responded to the second incident were aware of the first. He re-iterated the fact that a large number of children live in this neighbourhood and he noted that the 2 incidents were completely different from each other in terms of their circumstances. He expressed some difficulty in understanding why the appellant’s dog did what it did.

Responding to questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Leonard confirmed that his Boston Terrier was bitten, not scratched. It had a chunk taken out of it and the by-law officers had taken pictures of the injury. He confirmed that he had not seen the dog on the day Jake was bitten. However, he advised that he knew where the dog lived based on Jake’s description of the house. He explained that anyone coming into their subdivision had to drive by the appellant’s house and after the incident with Jake in August, he had seen the dog at the appellant’s house. Therefore, he knew it was the same dog. Mr. Leonard described it as a brownish, black Dobermin, Rottweiler type dog.

Mr. Huxley wondered if the witness had ever spoken to the appellant. Mr. Leonard explained that Ms. Damecour visited his home approximately one week after the second incident and told him she would be fighting it all the way. He testified that she talked about her dog and about what a nice dog it was. Although he felt she was a nice lady, he maintained that it was hard to feel sorry for her after his son and his dog had been bitten, each under very different circumstances.

Mr. Huxley indicated he had no further questions for the witness. Therefore, Chair Little invited the appellant to pose any questions she may have on cross-examination.

Ms. Damecour asked whether the witness knew who was with his son when he rode his bike past her home on August 23. Mr. Leonard re-iterated that there are a number of kids in the neighbourhood. He indicated that he know Andy Graveline was with Jake but he did not know who else may have been with them.

Responding to further questions from Ms. Damecour, Mr. Leonard indicated he was aware that the neighbourhood boys regularly frequently the appellant’s home to play in a tree fort in her backyard. He noted that the kids in the neighbourhood play at all the houses. He was not aware that the children had been playing with the appellant’s dog. However, he advised that after the August 23 incident, his boys had been told to stay away from the appellant’s home, even though he believed a muzzle order had been issued. Furthermore, he said he had been told that, because the appellant’s home was a rental unit, the exterior of the property was considered common ground.

Chair Little cautioned the appellant with respect to the relevance of her questions. He reminded her that she was supposed to be cross-examining the witness. Therefore, he recommended that she focus her questions on the testimony given by Mr. Leonard. He indicated she would have an opportunity to make her points when it was her turn to present her case.

Responding to some final questions from Ms. Damecour, Mr. Leonard re-iterated: that he and his son had just returned from a bike ride when his son left for a subsequent bike ride with a friend; that he was at home when the incident occurred and therefore he was with his son at that time.

Councillor McRae referenced the 2 witness statements provided to Committee and she wondered whether they were to be taken under advisement or whether they were considered evidentiary. Mr. Huxley explained that the rules of evidence in hearings such as these were not as stringent as in a court proceeding in that certain types of hearsay could be admitted. Furthermore, he noted that the witness statements constituted evidence from minors tendered in the course of an investigation. Therefore, he asked that they be accorded the weight they deserved.

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Leonard confirmed that the attack on his son Jake occurred on August 23, 2005 and that the second incident in which his Boston Terrier was bitten, occurred approximately 3 weeks later. He indicated that the appellant’s dog had not been wearing a muzzle. He re-iterated that it was leashed, but that no one was holding the other end of the leash. He acknowledged that it appeared the dog had gotten away from whomever had been holding the leash.

Councillor McRae wondered what had happened to Mr. Leonard’s dog; whether it had required treatment by a veterinarian and whether costs had been incurred. Mr. Leonard indicated his Boston Terrier had not required veterinary care. He explained that a piece of the dog’s skin had been lifted but that it had healed over and taken 3 or 4 months for the hair to grow back.

Councillor McRae referenced a statement made earlier with respect to By-law Services having taken photographs of the dog’s injury. Mr. Huxley indicated he did not have the photographs.

Responding to questions from Councillor McRae with respect to the effect on Jake, Mr. Leonard talked about the experience of having a dog come at you, growling and baring its teeth and he indicated that like himself, Jake was now nervous as a result of the incident.

In reply to questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Huxley maintained that the muzzle order before Committee today related to the incident of August 23, 2005 and that he was not in a position to comment on the investigation relating to the second incident.

He explained that at the time of the second incident, the appellant had not yet been served with a muzzle order relative to the first incident, therefore the fact that her dog was not muzzled on that occasion did not constitute a violation of the muzzle order. He noted that the muzzle order relative to the August 23 incident was dated September 30, 2005. At the time of the second incident, the investigation into the first incident had been on-going.

Responding to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Leonard confirmed the location of his community and he advised that he had not seen the appellant’s dog since the day of the attack on his own dog.

Mr. Huxley indicated he had no further witnesses or evidence on behalf of the Chief License Inspector. He explained that the investigating officer in this matter was no longer in the employ of By-law Services and therefore was not being tendered as a witness.

Chair Little invited the appellant to present her case. Ms. Damecour moved to the witness seat and was sworn-in prior to giving any testimony.

Ms. Damecour explained that her dog was part Doberman, part Greyhound and part Labrador and that it had been a rescued animal, which she adopted through Friends of Abandoned Pets. She submitted that it was a very docile dog and she offered to circulate a photograph of the dog with her children. She indicated that on August 23, 2005, she had been in her backyard, playing ball with her dog when approximately 10 boys came by the house, riding their bikes, aggravating and provoking her dog. She testified that she was new to the neighbourhood and she did not know these boys. She acknowledged that the dog had gone and growl at the boys and gone off the property. She called the dog back, apologized to the boys and asked if the were okay. The boys responded that they were fine and they continued to ride their bikes. Ms. Damecour stated that from that day forward, the boys continued to come to her property and play in a tree fort along with her dog. She maintained that her dog had never done this. She advised that her dog was 6 years old and that it had been in contact with children and sick people. She explained that she had taken the dog to hospital and palliative care facilities to visit sick people. The dog is very docile. She noted that when the By-law Enforcement Officer visited her home in the course of investigating this incident, the dog simply laid at his feet and wagged its tail. Ms. Damecour advised that she had recently purchased a kitten and that her dog played with the kitten constantly. She maintained that her dog had never been aggressive and she submitted that on August 23rd the dog had been provoked. She submitted 2 letters attesting to her dog’s temperament; one from Friends of Abandoned Pets and B.A.R.K., the other from her veterinarian. She also submitted a petition, signed by residents of her neighbourhood, kids and their parents. These documents were entered into evidence as exhibits 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

Ms. Damecour felt it was unfortunate that such a well-mannered, docile animal was being restrained from physical activity. She maintained that as a large animal, the dog needed exercise. She explained that at the time of the second incident, her daughter had been walking the dog in the park. She noted that she had not received the muzzle order until officer Montgomery hand-delivered it on October 4, 2005. She explained that the dog had been around a wide variety of people in a wide variety of situations and that it had never shown any sign of aggression or viciousness. She felt it was unfortunate that this had happened to the Leonard family and she advised that she had offered to Mr. Leonard to come to her home and meet the dog. She noted that Andrew Graveline, who had signed a witness statement entered into evidence on behalf of the Chief License Inspector, had also signed her petition. She maintained that on August 23, at least 5 boys were riding their bikes and that her dog had been provoked.

Responding to a series of questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Damecour re-iterated that when Jake Leonard and his friends rode their bicycles by her home on August 23, she had been in her backyard, playing ball with her dog. She explained that she lived on a very large property, described the lay-out, and she advised that the boys had been going up Porcupine Trail, idling their bicycles and razzing her dog. She confirmed that her yard was not fenced and that the lawn essentially went all the way to the road with only a slight ditch.

Mr. Huxley wondered what the appellant meant when she said that the boys were “razzing” her dog. Ms. Damecour explained that the boys were calling out to the dog therefore it got provoked and defended its property. She re-iterated that the boys had been regular visitors to her property to play in a tree fort with the boy next door, therefore the boys knew the dog.

Mr. Huxley asked if the boys were on her property. Ms. Damecour indicated they were riding their bicycles right on the edge, from the road to the property.

In reply to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Damecour submitted that the boys were riding their bikes in the area of her property for approximately 8 minutes. They had been riding very slowly. She acknowledge that her dog went off the property to chase the boys but that it only gave chase for about 20 seconds. She called out and the dog came right back.

Mr. Huxley wondered if the appellant’s call-out to the dog had taken place before it left the property. Ms. Damecour explained that it all happened very quickly. The dog was in the process of retrieving the ball. She could not recall whether she had called it back as soon as it took off, though she submitted that she probably had. She maintained that the dog came back within 10 seconds.

Responding to Mr. Huxley’s questions, Ms. Damecour confirmed that she knew Jake Leonard as well as his brother Hunter and their friends. She testified that she did not see her dog specifically chasing Jake on his bike. She saw the dog chasing the group of boys. She maintained that the dog was not really chasing them. It simply went up to their bikes and growled at them before she called it back. She advised that her 12-year old daughter had been walking the dog at the time of the second incident. She explained that she had been unaware of the second incident until officer Montgomery hand-delivered the muzzle order on October 4th. She indicated that officer Montgomery told her he had no alternative but to move forward on the muzzle order because Mr. Leonard was very upset. She confirmed that she was not present at the time of the second incident but that she had spoken briefly to her daughter about it. She re-iterated that her dog was not vicious, that she had gone around the neighbourhood and talked to people and that the neighbourhood boys, including the Leonard boys, had been to her house on numerous occasions, before and after the incident.

In response to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Damecour confirmed that she had purchased a muzzle for her dog and that she used it. She also advised that the dog was always leashed when off her property. She explained that because of the muzzle, the dog was no longer able to run and exercise outside. This was her reason for appealing the order.

Councillor Hunter posed a series of questions with respect to the dog’s history. In response, Ms. Damecour re-iterated that the dog had been rescued and she advised that she had adopted it when it was 4 months old. She indicated she was fairly certain that there was nothing in the dog’s past that could have sparked a recollection and caused it to behave aggressively.

A brief discussion ensued with respect to what the boys were doing and how it could be perceived as teasing the dog. Ms. Damecour suggested the boys’ teasing was probably more between each other and that the dog’s reaction related to protection of its property. She indicated the boys were doing things such as: riding their bikes very slowly, going back and forth across the street, moving closer and then further from the property line, back and forth; putting forward words of teasing; calling the dog names; harassing the dog; and cackling.

Councillor McRae referenced the by-law’s definition of “provocation” and the fact that it talked about an owner permitting the dog to bite or attack, without provocation, a person or another domestic animal. She noted the disconnect between the fact that, on one hand, the dog knew the boys and played with them when the frequented the appellant’s house but on the other hand, it reacted to them riding their bikes by the property and calling out, to a point where it bit one of them. She wondered if the appellant could offer some explanation for this disconnect. Ms. Damecour submitted that she was not a dog experts but that she knew her dog.

She re-iterated her earlier testimony with respect to the dog having been around various people in various circumstances and she maintained that her dog was docile. She believed that because of the boys’ behaviour on that day, the dog did not recognize them.

Responding to further questions from Councillor McRae with respect to the boys going back and forth across the road towards and then away from her property, Ms. Damecour indicated that she could not confirm whether or not the boys were on her property or whether they remained on the public roadway the entire time. She testified that she did not think Jake Leonard was on her property when he got bit, adding that she did not think he got bit. She believed he was scratched.

Councillor McRae wondered if Ms. Damecour also believed her dog was provoked when it bit Mr. Leonard’s Boston Terrier in the park. Ms. Damecour re-iterated that she was not present at that time. Her daughter was there. However, she assumed that the dog had been provoked, maintaining that it was not an aggressive animal.

Councillor McRae referenced the 2 aggressive acts committed by the dog and wondered, after the August 23rd incident, what steps the appellant had taken to safeguard against any re-occurrence. Ms. Damecour indicated she had spoken to Mr. Leonard and offered that he visit her home to meet her dog.

Councillor McRae inquired as to any remedial action taken towards the dog, after the August 23rd incident, to prevent it from biting again. Ms. Damecour responded that she had been unaware of the second incident.

Councillor McRae asked whether the appellant had taken the dog to obedience training or to the veterinarian to discuss its aggressive behaviour. Mr. Damecour indicated she had discussed the matter with her veterinarian and that the veterinarian had signed a letter attesting to the fact that this dog was not aggressive.

Responding to a final question from Councillor McRae, Ms. Damecour confirmed that in the 6 years since she acquired the dog, it had never before bitten a person or another domestic animal.

In response to a series of questions from Chair Little, Ms. Damecour re-iterated that her dog was 6 years old. She advised that after she acquired it, the dog completed and 8-week puppy training course. She confirmed that she had discussed with her veterinarian the possibility of having a consultation with a dog behaviourist but that, because the dog had never been aggressive in the past and that its only victims had been members of the Leonard family, she felt she would have to work directly with them to resolve the situation and she did not believe they would be prepared to participate.

During the time that the boys were teasing the dog, Councillor Hunter wondered if the appellant had made any attempt to tell them to stop. Ms. Damecour testified that she just kept playing with the dog.

She explained that because of the size of the property, she had been unaware of what was happening until the dog took off, at which time she called it back and it came back.

In closing, Mr. Huxley expressed the Chief License Inspector’s request that the muzzle order be upheld in its entirety. He referenced the August 23, 2005 incident where an 11-year old boy was out enjoying a summer evening with some friends, riding their bicycles in a City roadway, and was bitten by a dog. He read the By-law’s definition of provocation; “in the absence of teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting actions upon the dog or its owner, either in the past or present, by the person or the domestic animal who sustained the bite or attack”. He submitted that was a high standard and that the circumstances described by the appellant fell completely short of it. He also believed the entire incident had taken much less time than what was described. He noted Mr. Leonard’s testimony with respect to the fact that he had just returned from a bike ride when Jake left for a subsequent ride with a friend and returned 5 minutes later with the injury from the dog bite. He asked the Committee to uphold a stringent definition of “without provocation”, submitting that to do otherwise would lead to a slippery slope for any child who happened to be walking or riding a bicycle by that house. Furthermore, he noted that the appellant’s property was not fenced and the fact that, in the first incident, the dog had actually left the property to go onto the public roadway and bite the child. He referenced the second incident, which occurred approximately 3 weeks after the first, and the fact that the circumstances were completely different and again, the dog bit without provocation. He maintained that there was a problem and that it was addressed through the muzzle order. He again urged the Committee to maintain the muzzle order in its entirety.

A brief discussed followed with respect to Section 27 of the By-law, which states that “no owner of a dog shall permit the dog to bite or attack without provocation” and with respect to the By-law’s definition of “provocation”. Mr. Huxley confirmed that these were high standards. The first relates to an owner’s responsibility to do all due diligence to prevent their dog from biting a person or another domestic animal. The section defines acts of provocation. He submitted it is a high standard because it lists very deliberate acts. Furthermore, when one considers the purpose of the by-law, its intent is to protect members of the public, particularly children.

Councillor McRae wondered if the appellant owned the property and whether she was in a position to provide fencing, should the Committee decide to impose such a condition. Mr. Huxley indicated he could not comment on Ms. Damecour’s circumstances. However, he submitted that whatever the Committee may decide, the dog owner would be responsible for ensuring compliance.

Councillor Hunter inquired as to the role of the second incident in the Committee’s decision; what influence it had on the proceedings. Mr. Huxley submitted that the second incident was relevant in terms of putting the entire picture in context. He maintained that the matter before Committee was not an isolated incident. This dog had been involved in 2 incidents under completely different circumstances. In that regard, the second incident was relevant.

A discussion ensued with respect to the propriety of raising the second incident if the appellant was not aware that it would be discussed as part of today’s hearing. Chair Little concluded the debate by stating that, although the second incident was not before Committee today, it could influence the Committee’s decision. He maintained that should the second matter be brought before Committee or the courts at a future date, the appellant would have an opportunity to present a defence at that time.

In closing, Ms. Damecour added that she would do whatever was required in order to allow her to exercise her dog appropriately; whether that meant another obedience course or more information on the breed, she would do whatever was required.

Responding to questions from Committee members, Ms. Damecour indicated she would have to speak to her landlord to see whether she could fence the yard or a portion of it. However, she indicated that she could put in an invisible fence.

After considering the evidence presented to them, the Committee rendered the following decision.

Decision:

The License Committee unanimously agreed to uphold the muzzle order but that, should the appellant seek the help of an animal behaviourist or take other measures to control the dog’s behaviour, the matter could be brought back before the Committee at a later date for a further review.

Following the Committee’s decision, Mr. Huxley clarified that in this case, the muzzle order issued to the appellant only referenced Section 30 of the By-law, which requires that the dog be leashed and muzzled when off the owner’s property and that it be kept under the effective control of a person 16 years of age or older on a leash not more than 2 meters.

4. ANIMAL CONTROL TRIBUNAL – APPEAL OF MUZZLING ORDER –
MS. RACHEL BOYER

TRIBUNAL DU CONTRÔLE DES ANIMAUX – APPEL D’UNE ORDONNANCE DE MUSELLEMENT – mADEMOISELLE RACHEL BOYER

ACS2006-CPS-BYL-0006

Mr. Huxley advised that this matter related to an appeal of a dog muzzle order issued on November 30, 2005 in relation to a complaint received by By-law Services on November 18, 2005 as a result of an incident that occurred on November 16, 2005. He referenced the muzzle order, which cited that a person had been bitten by a collie mix dog and explained that the order was issued under Section 30 of the By-law, which meant that it only applied when the dog was off its owner’s premises.

Mr. Huxley called Mr. Richard Bigras, the complainant in this case, as the first witness for the Chief License Inspector. Mr. Bigras came forward and was sworn-in prior to giving any testimony.

Responding to a series of questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Bigras confirmed that he was involved in the incident in question and that the incident had occurred in the ByWard Market, at the corner of ByWard and George at approximately 3:15 p.m. on November 16, 2005.

At Mr. Huxley’s request, Mr. Bigras relayed the details of the incident. As he was crossing ByWard, heading towards the smoke shop after visiting a friend who is a vendor on the ByWard Market, he came upon a man who used to own dogs that did tricks. He had loose change in his pocket so he told the man that he would put money in the bucket. When he bent down to put the money in the bucket, without any warning, one of the dogs jumped up and bit his right arm.

Mr. Huxley posed some questions for clarifications. In response, Mr. Bigras explained that there were 3 dogs present, two small white dogs wearing hats and sunglasses, and a larger black dog, also wearing sunglasses. He explained that when he came upon them, the dogs were not doing any tricks. Their handler was sitting at a picnic table having a coffee, the dogs were tied and laying down, though the bucket, for people to put money in when the dogs performed tricks, was on the ground. He re-iterated that he told the man he would put money in the bucket and that, as he bent down to do so, the dog jumped up, started running towards him barking, and bit him. He further explained that the handler was sitting approximately 15 feet away from the dogs and that the dogs were approximately 8 feet away from the bucket.

Mr. Huxley asked what happened next. Mr. Bigras indicated that the dog was hanging off his arm. He showed the scars that remained on his forearm. He testified that he called out to the man to call his dog. Afterwards, he went to Giant Tiger to buy a bottle of peroxide, after which he went to a City facility in the market area and asked if he could use the washrooms to clean-up.

Staff at the City facility asked him what had happened and recommended that he go upstairs to see Normand, the man in charge of the office upstairs, to tell him what had happened. From there, he went to see his doctor. His own doctor was not in. He was seen by another doctor and he was told that the Health Department would have to be contacted and advised of the incident.

Mr. Huxley asked the witness to describe the dog that bit him and to confirm whether the scars on his arm were the result of the dog bite. Mr. Bigras indicated that the dog was 2 or 3 feet high with long black hair. He confirmed that the scars on his arm were the result of the bite.

In response to questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Bigras re-iterated that after going to Giant Tiger to buy peroxide, he went to a City facility to use the washroom to clean himself up. He was advised to go upstairs and report the incident to Normand, which he did. He then visited his doctor’s office on Bruyère Street, where he was treated for the dog bite, given an injection, and told that the dog’s owner would have to be contacted. He explained that he thought the man in the market was the dog’s owner but that he was later advised he was not; he just took care of the dog.

Mr. Huxley asked whether the man in the market had told Mr. Bigras who owned the dog. The witness responded in the negative. He indicated the man had simply told him that he did not own the dog. He confirmed that he had never met the appellant.

Responding to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Bigras indicated he had not received stitches for his injury.

Mr. Huxley referenced the purpose of the hearing and invited the witness to make any additional comments to Committee. Mr. Bigras noted the public nature of the ByWard Market area and expressed concerns with respect to such an incident happening to a child or to a senior citizen. He maintained that this dog should be muzzled.

Chair Little invited the appellant to pose any questions she may have on cross-examination.

Ms. Boyer began by confirming that she was the owner of the dog in question. She explained that the handler was Mr. Carl Gibson and that Mr. Gibson used to take her dog a couple of days each week, not to do tricks, but just to keep it socialized. However, she confirmed that he had his own dogs perform tricks in the Market area. She noted that Mr. Gibson had been unable to attend the hearing. Addressing the witness, Mr. Boyer asked whether it was true that when he reach down, it was not to put money in the bucket but rather to pet the two little white dogs over the black dog and that the black dog had simply lifted its head and bit him. She advised that this was what she had been told with respect to how the incident had unfolded.

Chair Little reminded the appellant that she would have her turn to present her side of the story. He asked her to keep her questions relative to the testimony given by the witness.

Ms. Boyer asked Mr. Bigras whether he had leaned over her dog to pet the two smaller dogs. Mr. Bigras responded in the negative and testified that he did not pet any of the dogs. He indicated that since the incident, he had been threatened by the man who had been present; he had been told that there would be trouble if he did not drop the charges. He maintained that he was not directly responsible for any charges that may or may not have been laid, either against the dog owner or against the handler.

Responding to a question from Chair Little, Ms. Boyer indicated she had no further questions for the witness.

Councillor McRae indicated she did not have any questions for the witness. However, she reserved the right to recall him should questions arise during the course of the hearing.

Mr. Huxley called the next witness for the Chief License Inspector, By-law Enforcement Officer Tyler Patterson. Mr. Patterson came forward and was sworn-in.

Mr. Huxley asked the witness to relay the findings of his investigation into this matter. Mr. Patterson indicated that on November 18, 2005, he received a complaint regarding a dog bite that had occurred on November 16, 2005 at approximately 3:15 p.m. He believed the complaint was originally called in by Normand of the ByWard Market Association. Mr. Patterson explained that he contacted Normand and obtained the name and telephone number of the dog owner, who turned out not to be the person in care and control of the dog at the time of the incident; Mr. Carl Gibson had been in care and control of the dog at the time of the incident. Mr. Patterson testified that he spoke with Mr. Gibson. He also contacted the complainant, Mr. Bigras, obtained a witness statement from him and took photographs of his injury. He noted that the stories given to him by Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bigras were approximate in nature as to what had transpired. Consequently, he issued a Provincial Offence Notice (PON) in the amount of $610 to Mr. Gibson for permitting a dog to bite a person. He attempted to follow-up with the dog owner. He informed her of his intent to issue a muzzle order, at which point she stated that he was wrong and that she would not abide by the order. She then hung up and refused to answer any of his calls. He explained that he had difficulty locating Ms. Boyer. The name originally given to him by the ByWard Market Association did not match any names in By-law Services’ animal database. He subsequently searched the database using the dog’s name and located Ms. Boyer at 1187 St. Thérèse Lane in Orléans and served upon her a muzzle order under Section 30 of the By-law.

Responding to questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Patterson explained that he had learned the dog’s name in his telephone conversation with the appellant and that the name originally given to him by the ByWard Market Association was Rachel Bayer.

He re-iterated that a Provincial Offence Notice had been issued to Mr. Carl Gibson and that should Mr. Gibson contest, the PON would be part of a separate proceeding before the courts. He indicated he was not aware of the status of the PON. He explained that the PON was issued to Mr. Gibson because he was in care and control of the dog at the time of the incident but that the muzzle order was issued to Ms. Boyer because she was the registered owner of the dog.

Mr. Huxley wondered if the witness had some input into the muzzle order that was issued. Mr. Patterson explained that, because the incident had occurred in a public place, he only issued the order under Section 30 of the By-law, which requires that the dog be leashed and muzzled when off the owner’s premises. He relayed that Mr. Gibson and Ms. Boyer had indicated to him that the dog had a dislike of Mr. Bigras, however given the public nature of the location and circumstances, he submitted that one does not choose who approaches the animals, particularly when they are put on display.

Responding to questions from Mr. Huxley with respect to the circumstances, Mr. Patterson indicated he could not comment on the exact set-up at the time of the incident. However, he explained that Mr. Gibson was a panhandler or busker and that he put his dogs on display, performing tricks in order to gets funds from the community. He testified that he had seen such an activity on the ByWard Market on another date. He indicated his understanding was that Ms. Boyer had given her dog to Mr. Gibson to train, though he was unsure of the details.

In response to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Mr. Patterson indicated that, according by By-law Services’ records, the dog in question was a collie mix. He confirmed that he had not seen the dog.

Chair Little invited the appellant to pose any questions she may have on cross-examination.

Responding to question from Ms. Boyer, Mr. Patterson acknowledged that he and the appellant had played telephone tag over a 2-week period; while he kept attempting to contact her, she kept attempting to return his calls.

Ms. Boyer asked the witness to confirm whether she had asked him to speak to Mr. Gibson and other witnesses of the incident to get statements from them as to what had happened. Mr. Patterson indicated he had spoken to Mr. Gibson but that he had not spoken to any other witnesses.

Responding to a question from Councillor McRae, Mr. Patterson re-iterated that, although there were some minor discrepancies, the accounts provided to him by Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bigras were approximate in nature.

Councillor McRae referenced Mr. Bigras’ evidence with respect to the dog taking off from 7 or 8 feet away and she wondered if that was consistent with the information provided by Mr. Gibson. Mr. Patterson indicated that Mr. Gibson had made no mention as to how far away the dog was when it bit Mr. Bigras, just that it reached up and bit him as he was making a reaching motion.

Councillor McRae wondered if Mr. Gibson had said anything about the complainant provoking the dog. Mr. Patterson indicated Mr. Gibson had said that the dog did not like Mr. Bigras and that it had growled at him.

Councillor McRae asked whether Mr. Bigras was known to the dog prior to the day of the incident. Mr. Patterson did not believe he was.

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Patterson confirmed that when he advised the appellant that he would be issuing a muzzle order, she told him she would not comply with it. Though he could not recall his exact words, he believed he had informed her that she would not have a choice in that regard. He noted that the appellant stopped conversing with him shortly after that. She hung up on him. He re-iterated that he had no idea as to the set-up at the time of the incident; where the dogs were in relation to each other or where they were in relation to Mr. Gibson. He advised that, when he served Ms. Boyer with the muzzle order he did not have an opportunity to see the dog. He knocked on the door, handed Ms. Boyer the muzzle order and asked her if she would like it explained. She responded in the negative and closed the door.

Councillor McRae indicated she had no more questions for this witness. However, she again reserved the right to recall him should any questions arise during the course of the hearing.

Mr. Huxley indicated he had no further witnesses or evidence on behalf of the Chief License Inspector.

Chair Little invited the appellant to present her case. Ms. Boyer moved to the witness seat and was sworn-in prior to giving any testimony.

Ms. Boyer explained that she met Mr. Gibson some time ago after doing some training with her dog. She indicated that, having a big dog, she was very committed to exercising it and trying to keep it socialized. When she met Mr. Gibson, he had a big black dog that was very well trained and very well behaved. He offered to take her dog a couple of days a week in order to keep her socialized. He also had 2 other little dogs, terriers that do tricks. This is what they were doing in the market on the day of the incident. She explained that the day of the incident was one of those days when Mr. Gibson took her dog. She referenced her work hours and indicated that it suited her lifestyle for someone else to assist in getting the dog out. She stated that, from what she was told by Mr. Gibson, the dogs were laying down and Mr. Bigras bent over her dog to pet the two smaller dogs.

She did not deny that her dog had lifted its head and grabbed the complainant. She felt bad about that. However, she maintained that there was a difference between an aggressive dog and a dog grabbing the arm of someone who bends over it. She acknowledged that there was a bite but she maintained that, to her, there was also a provocation. She submitted that her dog was not aggressive. She noted that the dog had been around all kinds of people. She admitted telling Mr. Patterson that she would not muzzle her dog. However, she had bought a muzzle after being issued the order in November. She was not happy about it but she had complied. She indicated she had had the dog for over 3 years and she did not believe it needed to be muzzled. She advised that she continued to train the dog and that, further to the incident, she had contacted an animal behaviourist because she was concerned and she was a responsible dog owner. She testified that Mr. Randy Chartrand of Canine Academy had assessed her dog and confirmed that it was not aggressive but that it tended to want to be dominant. As a result, Mr. Chartrand had recommended further training to modify the dog’s behaviour. Ms. Boyer indicated that for the past 3 years, she had taken students from around the world into her home. These were strangers who were in and out of her home yet there had never been an incident with her dog. She noted that her dog had not been back to the ByWard Market since the muzzle order had been issued but that, after the incident and before the order was issued, it had been welcomed there by the ByWard Market Association and the merchants. She noted that the dog was big, approximately 75 pounds. However, she corrected an earlier statement, noting that the dog did not have long hair, it had short hair. She re-iterated that in her mind, the dog felt threatened when Mr. Bigras bent over it to pet the two smaller dogs and it acted to protect the smaller dogs.

Responding to questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Boyer confirmed that she owned only one dog and that she had had it for over 3 years.

Mr. Huxley referenced Ms. Boyer’s testimony with respect to their being a number of people in and out of her home without any previous incidents. He asked her to confirm whether or not her dog had bitten a Purolator courier in January 2004. Ms. Boyer confirmed that there had been an incident involving a Purolator courier. However, she explained that when the courier came to her house, no one was home. Her children were at work and she was in Afghanistan. The Purolator courier was carrying a box and he opened the door. The dog did not step out of the house and the case was dismissed.

Mr. Huxley requested confirmation that, irrespective of whether or not court proceedings were dismissed, a person was bitten by her dog. Ms. Boyer responded in the affirmative.

Responding to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Boyer indicated the courier was bitten in the hand. She advised that she had been in Afghanistan for a couple of weeks and that the incident had not been relayed to her until her return.

Mr. Huxley asked about the relationship with Mr. Gibson. In reply to his questions, Ms. Boyer confirmed that she was not related to Mr. Gibson. She explained that she had met him more than one year earlier. She advised that on the days when Mr. Gibson took her dog, she would drop the dog off to him in the morning and the pick it up at the end of the day. She noted that Mr. Gibson could always reach her by telephone if there were incidents. She confirmed that on November 16, 2005, Mr. Gibson had called her at approximately 4:30 p.m.

Responding to further questions from Mr. Huxley, Ms. Boyer confirmed that she would always leave a leash when she left it with Mr. Gibson. In fact, she stated that her dog was always leashed when off her property. She explained that the leash she left with Mr. Gibson was 5 feet long so the dog could not go too far. She re-iterated that although Mr. Gibson’s dog performed tricks, her dog did not.

Councillor McRae asked the appellant to explain what she meant when she said her dog was provoked. Ms. Boyer re-iterated that from her understanding of the incident, her dog had been laying down with the two smaller dogs. Mr. Bigras walked up, did not call out to Mr. Gibson, and bent over her dog to pet the 2 smaller dogs. She maintained that was a direct threat to the dog.

In light of the appellant’s comments, Councillor McRae requested clarification on the By-law’s definition of provocation. Mr. Huxley indicated the By-law sets out provocation as meaning “teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting actions upon the dog or its owner, either in the past or the present by the person or domestic animal who sustained the bite or attack.”

Councillor McRae believed what had been described, leaning over the dog to pet the other dogs or put money into the bucket, did not fit the By-law’s definition of provocation. Mr. Huxley concurred, noting that in his closing arguments at the end of the hearing, he would submit that this was not a provoked incident.

Responding to questions from Councillor McRae, Ms. Boyer indicated that since the muzzle order had been issued, she had purchased a muzzle and put it on her dog when off her property. She advised that her dog had not been to the market area since the muzzle order had been issued. She explained that, should Committee decide to lift the muzzle order, it was not her intent to allow her dog to return to the market area. She re-iterated that the animal behaviourist had recommended additional training to correct the dog’s behaviour. She maintained that she would not take any risks.

Councillor McRae indicated it sounded as though the dog was unprovoked and it bit someone who, by the sheer nature of the circumstances, was being invited to come close to the dogs. Ms. Boyer indicated her understanding was the Mr. Bigras did not put money in the bucket but rather, that he had approached to pet the dogs. Furthermore, she noted that when the incident happened, the dogs were not performing. They were resting and Mr. Gibson was sitting down having a cup of coffee.

Chair Little requested documentation with respect to the dog behaviourist’s assessment of the appellant’s dog. In response, Ms. Boyer confirmed that she could provide it to By-law Services.

Responding to questions from Chair Little, Ms. Boyer confirmed that her backyard was fully fenced and that the yard could not be accessed from off the property.

Chair Little recalled Mr. Bigras to the witness seat and reminded him that he was still under oath.

Councillor McRae noted that the appellant was contesting the complainant’s sworn testimony. She asked 2 direct questions: whether Mr. Bigras reached across the appellant’s dog to pet the 2 other dogs; and whether the complainant had reached into his pocket to retrieve change to put into the bucket. Mr. Bigras responded to the first question in the negative and to the second question in the affirmative.

Responding to further questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Bigras indicated the bucket was 5 to 8 feet away from the dogs. He re-iterated that he had told Mr. Gibson he was putting change into the bucket. He testified that Mr. Gibson was sitting down having a coffee and that he responded to him, telling him to go ahead. When he bent down to put money into the bucket, the dog jumped up. He indicated that the dog was tied to a door, by a rope approximately 6 to 10 feet long. He confirmed that the black dog had been laying down beside the 2 white dogs and that the dog had growled at him once, though it had happened very quickly.

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter with respect to his earlier testimony, Mr. Bigras confirmed that at first, he did not consider the incident too serious. He re-iterated that he had been encouraged to file a report with the ByWard Market Association and that, after treating the injury, his doctor’s office had notified the proper authorities.

In closing, Mr. Huxley reminded Committee that the muzzle order only applied to the off-property. He asked Committee to take Mr. Bigras’ evidence for what it was; a candid account of what happened to him in a public space and an expression of concern for children and senior citizens. In light of the circumstances, Mr. Huxley asked that the muzzle order be upheld in its entirety.

After considering the evidence presented to them, the Committee rendered the following decision.

Decision:

The License Committee unanimously agreed to uphold the muzzle order.

INQUIRIES

DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

Appeals of License Committee Decisions

Councillor McRae asked whether any appeals had been commenced with respect to the Committee’s decisions from its last hearing regarding removals from the accessible taxi plate priority list. Mr. Huxley advised that, other than the appeal commenced after the November 21, 2005 hearing, no other appeals had been filed. He confirmed that, should any appeals of any decisions of this Committee be filed, he would advise the Chair.

OTHER BUSINESS

AUTRES QUESTIONS

License Committee Orientation Session

Chair Little noted the addition of Councillor Monette as a member of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and he suggested that the License Committee orientation session, offered to members at the beginning of their term, be made available to Councillor Monette so that, should he be called upon to replace a permanent member of the Committee, he would be familiar with the Committee and its processes.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 1:55 p.m.

Original signed by Original signed by

D. Blais Councillor S. Little

Committee Co-ordinator Chair

Comité des permis

le lundi 20 février 2006, 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West