J

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

1

CHAIR AND MEMBERS ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

MEETING ON NOVEMBER 8,2004

JAMES P. BARBER CITY SOLICITOR

& PETER W. STEBLIN, P. ENG.

GENERAL MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES & CITY ENGINEER

DRAFT BY-LAWS DEALING WITH THE CLASSIFICATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS

RECOMMENDATION I t

That, on the recommendation of the City Solicitor and the General Manager of Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the following actions be taken:

a) This report BE RECEIVED for information;

b) A public participation meeting on November 16, 2004 to receive comments and input from interested parties on the Draft By-laws for prohibiting and regulating certain dog breeds, dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs BE APPROVED;

c) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to develop the requirements and implications of implementing a by-law to regulate and license certain breeds of dogs, dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs and report back to the Environment & Transportation Committee; and

d) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to consult with staff from the Ministry of the Attorney General on the propped amendments to the Dog Owner’s Liability Act and its implications in proposing a breed specific by-law in the City of London.

I PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER I The following report provides additional information relevant to this report:

ETC Meeting, August 30, 2004 Classification of Dangerous Dog Breeds, Agenda Item 22a httP://www. london.ca/Council/meetinspackaaes. htm

BACKGROUND

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide the ETC with draft by-laws, background details on the issue of breed specific bans, dangerous dog legislation and items that must be considered in developing and implementing by-laws from administrative and enforcement perspectives. A copy of the Council resolution of September 7, 2004 is contained in Appendix A.

Context: In Canada, animal control is largely a local government responsibility using a combination of local by- law and Provincial legislation. The City of London has two animal control by-laws: Animal Control By- law (PH-3) and the Dog Licensing and Control By-law (PH-4). In Ontario, the Dog Owner’s Liability Act is also a legal and enforcement instrument used to protect the public against dangerous dogs. Dog breeders also fall under provincial jurisdiction. Federal matters include the categories of importing dogs and collection of data on human injuries from animals.

Comprehensive Canadian data on animal control actions such as dog bites, dog muzzling order, etc. is limited. There is no central registry of animal control data that may be viewed as containing impartial data. The following three sources of information do highlight what is being viewed as a growing concern in Canadian municipalities:

A r d a ltem,#bPag, #

1% 6

2

Canadian Safety Council The Canada Safety Council (CSC) is a national, non-government, charitable organization dedicated to safety. The CSC estimates that dogs bite 460,000 Canadian annually. The CSC President reports that dog bites are common reasons for emergency room visits, however there is no mandatory reporting of incidents. In the absence of annual Canadian data, the CSC uses United States data to estimate that 75,000 dog bites in Canada result in visits to doctors or hospitals, with 500 bites possibility resulting in hospitalization each year.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recognized as the lead United States agency for protecting the health and safety of people. It is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The most current data reported by this organization on dog bite issues, noting that the United States has about 10 times the population base of Canada, include:

0

0

0

0

Every 40 seconds, someone in the United States seeks medical attention for a dog bite- related injury. During 1979-1998, dog attacks killed more than 300 Americans. Nearly 800,000 people sought medical care for dog bites in 1994; half of them were children under 18. Injury Center researchers examined data about deadly dog attacks that occurred during 1979-1 998. They found that at least 25 breeds of dogs had been involved in the fatal attacks. However, pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the deaths for which the breed was known. Children are at greater risk of injury and death from dog bites. In 1994, approximately 2.5% of U.S. children under 14 years old were bitten compared with 1.6% of adults over 18 years old. In 1997-1 998, 27 people died from dog bites; 19 of them were children under 15 (source: CDC website http://www.cdc.rrov)

0

Ontario Pro vin cia1 Government On October 26, 2004 the Ministry of the Attorney General released a Backgrounder in support of its proposed legislation to ban Pit Bulls and introduce tougher penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public. In the Backgrounder the following statistics were provided:

Winnipeg: prior to the ban, there were 30 pit bull attacks per year and 30 to 40 reported serious attacks of all dogs per year. In the past four years, there have been no pit bull attacks

Kitchener-Waterloo: prior to the ban, in 1995 and 1996, there were 17 and 18 pit bull incidents, respectively. After the ban, there has been about one per year (source: Ministry of the Attorney General Backgrounder, October 26,2004)

In summary, the common theme that has been presented above and has been raised by delegations and letters to the ETC is that aggressive dogs threaten public safety. Animal control is a primary responsibility of local government.

Discussion: This section contains details in 8 specific areas:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

City of London Dog Biting Statistics Overview of Bans and Dangerous Dogs’ By-laws Other Jurisdictions Overview of Position Statements from Various Organizations Development of Two Proposed By-Laws Overview of Leg al I m pl i ca t io n s Id ent if icat ion of Implications (Administration & Enforcement) in Implementing these B y-laws Key Decisions that Must be Made by Municipal Council Key Areas Requiring Further Investigation

I. City of London Doa Biting Statistics

Statistics on dog bites in London are noted on Table 1 for the last three years. The top 40 breeds (column I) have been listed by order of the number of alleged bites investigated over this period (Column 2). When viewing data from Column 2 it is important to consider the data from Column 3 (Number of Licenses by Breed in London 2004). For example, the 47 Lab bites must be viewed in the context of the high number of licensed Labs in the City. Column 2 data provides no indication of the severity of the bite.

3

Boxer Doberman Lhasa Apso Dachshund Bichon Frise

Pit Bull (a) 143 840 125 18

Lab 47 3,514 39 8 Rottweiler 37 533 29 8 Husky 28 628 24 4 Jack Russell 27 1,131 21 6 Border Collie 26 600 19 7 Chow Chow 20 194 14 6

German Shepherd 117 2,449 89 28

9 334 4 5 8 149 6 2 7 159 5 2 7 379 6 1 7 554 4 3

Beagle Miniature Schnauzer German S. H. Pointer Cocker Spaniel Chesapeake Bay Retriever Bouvier Bloodhound American Eskimo Spitz Old English Sheepdog Chihuahua Basenji Airedale Akita Whippet

~ -~ - -~

6 743 6 0 5 672 2 3 4 94 1 3 4 661 4 0 4 35 2 2 4 121 4 0 4 135 3 I 4 168 3 1 3 74 3 0 3 33 2 1 3 472 2 1 3 34 1 2 3 87 1 2 3 40 3 0 2 48 2 0

Column 4 identifies whether action was taken or not on the alleged dog bite. The two choices for a dog bite are Notice of Caution if there are mitigating factors as stated in the by-law or a muzzle order. If no action has been taken, then one of the following has occurred; owner euthanized dog, no bite evidence was found, or victim could not supply address of dog.

There are over 24,100 dogs licensed in the City. The total number of bites recorded over the last three years is over 640. Licensed Pit Bulls represent about 3.5% of the licensed dogs in London. However Pit Bulls represented 22% of the alleged bites. Pit Bulls also have the highest percentage of bites per licensed breed (Le., specific to that breed), over 50% greater than the percentage for the next licensed breed. Pit Bulls bites are also known to be severe due to the strength of the animal. Other dogs that

4

are known to be powerful and are often listed as breeds that may replace Pit Bulls in popularity if they are banned include Rottweilers, Akitas and Presa Canarios.

2. Overview of Bans and Danaerous Dogs' By-laws Other Jurisdictions

A survey was conducted of 25 jurisdictions to identify the role of breed specific dog bans andlor dangerous or potentially dangerous dog by-laws. Complete details are contained in Appendix B and summarized below:

1 Southwestern Ontario I 10 1 ~ 3+2draftby-laws 1 9 I I Elsewhere in Ontario I 9 I 0 I ' 5 I 1 Across Canada I 6 I 1 I 4 I Three cities in southwestern; Ontario, Kitchener, Waterloo and most recently Windsor, have implemented bans on Pit Bulls. The majority of urban areas in this same area have specific by-laws dealing with dangerous dogs. The City of Winnipeg has had its Pit Bull ban in effect since 1990. There is currently growing interest among municipalities with respect to strengthening animal control by-laws to protect the public.

3. Overview of Position Statements from Various Organizations

A web-search was undertaken to determine the positions of various organizations on Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and Dangerous Dog Legislation (Appendix C). The sampled organizations are relatively consistent in their positions; they support dangerous dog legislation and by-laws while they do not support breed specific legislation and by-laws. The basis for these positions is reflected in the fol low i n g factors .

Breed specific by-laws are not supported since:

0 There is a lack of objective methods for establishing lineage of cross bred dogs, Dangerous dogs may exist in every breed and breed cross, Dangerous temperament and behaviour are products of many factors, not just breed, Breed bans will include some dangerous dogs but will also include some that are not dangerous, Breed bans provide a false sense of security by inferring that all other breeds not subject to the ban, are safe.

Dangerous and vicious dog by-laws are supported and found to be effective when they incorporate:

Significant fines for owners of dogs that are involved in a bite incident, Proven guidelines for professional temperament assessment of a dog as dangerous or vicious, Protocol to deal with dogs (eg. euthanasia or confinement) that have been professionally assessed as dangerous or vicious, Incentives for owners to spayheuter, socialize and train their pets, Confinement laws including leash laws, running at large laws, property confinement laws, use of muzzles, Stiffer regulations pertaining to breeder registration that serve to avoid puppy mills, Public awareness and education programs promoting responsible pet ownership.

4. Development of Two Proposed By-Laws

I. Prohibiting By-law (Appendix D-I) The by-law sets out 4 types of dogs: Prohibited, Restricted, Dangerous, Potentially Dangerous

(I) Prohibited Dog: certain breeds of dogs, such as Pit Bulls, Akitas, Rottweillers, Canarios or any combination thereof, would be banned, and need not have bitten or acted aggressively. Council, in deciding to ban, must have information before it that such breeds of dog are a public nuisance, and that

A i i q h g , # 5

such dogs imperil the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the City. Such dogs would have to be removed from the City or euthanized by a veterinarian at the owner’s expense.

(2) Restricted Dog: certain breeds of dogs that are banned may be “grandfathered” if they were resident in London at the time of the passing of the by-law. The owner would have to fulfill certain conditions in order to obtain a separate Restricted Dog Licence for these dogs. Owners of Restricted dogs would have to comply with all requirements in the by-law, such as muzzling, neutering, etc., outlined in more detail below

(3) Dangerous Dog: dogs of any breed that have bitten, attacked, or caused injury to a person, or have significantly injured a domestic animal. The owner would have to fulfill certain conditions in order to obtain a separate Dangerous Dog Licence for these dogs. Owners of Dangerous dogs would have to comply with all requirements in the by-law, such as muzzling, neutering, etc, outlined in more detail below.

(4) Potentially Dangerous Dog: dogs of any breed that have chased or approached any person or domestic animal in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack. The owner would have to fulfill certain conditions in order to obtain a separate Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence for these dogs. Owners of Potentially Dangerous dogs would have to comply with all requirements in the by-law, such as muzzling, neutering, etc., outlined in more detail below.

The main features of this by-law are:

Pit Bulls would be banned from the City, with the exception of Pit Bulls currently residing in the City.

Pit Bulls that exist in the City at the time the by-law passes would be ”grandfathered” as restricted, would have to obtain a separate licence, and would have to comply with several requirements, outlined below.

Owners can request a hearing before a Committee designated by Council where their dog has been designated as Prohibited, Restricted, Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous. Such Committee could be composed of one or more members of the public, but 50% of the members must be Council members.

Owners who breach the provisions of the by-law will have the licences for any dogs under this by- law revoked. Where a Restricted Dog licence is revoked, the dog would be considered a Prohibited - Dog and must be euthanized or removed; where a Dangerous Dog licence is revoked, the dog would have to be euthanized; where a Potentially Dangerous Dog licence is revoked, the dog would be deemed a Dangerous Dog.

Where the owner of a dog designated as Potentially Dangerous has complied with the by-law provisions for two years, the Potentially Dangerous Dog designation expires.

Owners of dogs designated under the by-law would have to comply with the following in order to obtain and keep a licence:

provide proof that dog successfully completed obedience training [This provision would not come into effect immediately as time would be required to process all requests for such training]. dog not be kept in a multiple dwelling or lodging house; evidence that dog is spayedheutered; not to have care or control of more than one Pit Bull, Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog in a public place; not to own more than one Pit Bull, Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog; shall not allow dog to run at large; shall not allow dog in care of individual less than 18 years of age; muzzling of the dog when not on the owner’s premises; contain the dog when on the owner’s premises (either confined within the owner’s dwelling, or in an enclosed pen, or in a fenced yard approved by the Poundkeeper); provide evidence that dog is microchipped; evidence of third party liability insurance of at least $1,000,000.00; ’display sign provided by Poundkeeper; provide Poundkeeper with new address and phone number of owner if owner moves;

6

- provide Poundkeeper with name, address and phone number of any person to whom Owner is selling or giving up possession of dog; [note that this is only in the event that Council decides not to prohibit the selling of the dog] notify Poundkeeper immediately if dog is running at large or has bitten or attacked; Owner shall not have had a prior breach of any requirements of the by-law. *

- -

The by-law also provides that charges may be laid for the following offences for Prohibited, Restricted, Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dogs. Set fine amounts could be sought for the purpose of issuing tickets. These amounts could increase from Potentially Dangerous Dogs ($300 per offence), to ProhibitedlRestricted Dogs ($500 per offence):

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

keep or harbour a Prohibited Dog; fail to obtain a Restricted, Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence; permit dog to attack human or domestic animal; permit dog to trespass on private property; permit dog to run at large; fail to contain dog when on owner’s premises; fail to muzzle dog when not contained on owner’s premises; keep or harbour dog in multiple dwelling or lodging house; have care or control of more than one designated dog in a public place; allow dog to be in care or control of person less than 18 years of age; fail to microchip dog; fail to have insurance; fail to display warning sign; fail to provide Poundkeeper with new address where owner moves; fail to notify Poundkeeper if dog running at large; fail to notify Poundkeeper if dog attacked or bitten person or domestic animal; fail to leash dog in leash-free park; breed dog fail to keep dog tag securely affixed to dog.

I

2. Reaulation By-law (0-2) This by-law is similar to the “Prohibiting By-law” but instead of banning certain breeds, those breeds would be regulated. The provisions for Dangerous Dogs and Potentially Dangerous Dogs are exactly the same as in the Prohibiting By-law. This by-law has 3 types of dogs: Regulated, Dangerous, Potentially Dangerous

Regulated: certain breeds of dogs such as Pit Bulls, Akitas, Rottweillers, Canarios or any combination thereof, would be regulated (muzzled, neuteredlspayed, etc.), and need not have bitten or acted aggressively. Council, in deciding to regulate, must have information before it that such breeds of dog are a public nuisance, and that such dogs imperil the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the City. The owner would have to fulfill certain conditions in order to obtain a separate Regulated Dog Licence for these dogs. Owners of Regulated dogs would have to comply with all requirements in the by-law, which are the same as those requirements in the above Prohibited Dog by-law.

(2) Dangerous Dog: dogs of any breed that have bitten, attacked, or caused injury to a person, or have significantly injured a domestic animal. The owner would have to fulfill certain conditions in order to obtain a separate Dangerous Dog Licence for these dogs. Owners of Dangerous dogs would have to comply with all requirements in the by-law, such as muzzling, neutering, etc, outlined in detail above in the Prohibited Dog by-law.

(3) Potentially Dangerous Dog: dogs of any breed that have chased or approached any person or domestic animal in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack. The owner would have to fulfill certain conditions in order to obtain a separate Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence for these dogs. Owners of Potentially Dangerous dogs would have to comply with all requirements in the by-law, such as muzzling, neutering, etc., outlined in detail above in the Prohibited Dog by-law.

The main features of this by-law are:

Specific breeds of dogs are not banned outright, but would have strict controls placed on them, including being muzzled when not contained on the owner’s premises, being neuteredlspayed,

7

being microchipped, .requiring signage, requiring insurance, etc (all requirements are listed above under the Prohibiting By-law).

In addition, dogs of any breed that have bitten, or acted aggressively can be designated as Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous, and must fulfill all of the same requirements as noted above for the Prohibiting By-law.

3. Prohibitina and Reaulatina By-law The third option would be to combine the above two by-laws, to provide that certain breeds of dogs be banned (Prohibited/Restricted), and that certain breeds of dogs be Regulated. For instance, Pit Bulls might be considered to be Prohibited/Restricted, and a breed such as Akita might be considered to be Regulated. As in both by-laws, any breed of dog could be designated as Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous based on its behaviour.

5. Overview of Leaal Implications

As stated in James P. Barber’s report to ETC and Council dated August 30, 2004:

The Municipal Act, 2007 identifies “animals” as a sphere of jurisdiction under section 1 1 of the Act. Section 10 provides that a by-law under the Act may be general or specific in its application and may differentiate in any way and on any basis that a municipality considers appropriate. It would appear on the basis of sections 10 and 11 that a municipality may regulate, license, classify and prohibit certain breeds of dogs as “dangerous”. There are no specific provisions in the Municipal Act, 2007 for licensing or classifying dogs alth’ough there are provisions for muzzling and impounding dogs. There are no regulations limiting the ability to regulate, license, classify or prohibit breeds of dogs. Any requirement to muzzle a dog is subject to an appeal by the dog owner (which power may be delegated to a committee of council or to an animal control officer of the municipality).

The following are legal issues that arise in the proposed by-laws for Council’s consideration.

Definition of Pit Bull: Pit Bulls are not a breed that is recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club. The by- law, as well as any provincial legislation, might face challenges based on this definition. Different jurisdictions have defined “Pit Bull” in different ways. For instance, United Kingdom legislation refers to “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”. The Kennel Club in the U.K. did not have a standard for that breed, and a U.K. case held that dog “type” had a wider meaning than “breed”, therefore a court had to adopt some guide for determining the limits of the phrase “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”. It was held that what that guide should be were questions of fact for the decision of the Court on the evidence. On the other hand, the City of Winnipeg has included in its definition of a Pit Bull “any dog which has the appearance and characteristics predominantly conforming to the standards for any of the above breeds, as established by the Canadian Kennel Club or the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club and attached as Schedule B, as determined by a veterinarian licensed to practice in Manitoba” [emphasis added]. This definition has been upheld by the courts. The definition in the proposed Provincial Legislation is more akin to the UK Legislation in that there is no requirement for a veterinarian to make a determination of whether the dog is a Pit Bull. In the proposed draft by-law, there is no requirement for a veterinarian to make a determination whether the dog is a Pit Bull, but it also refers to standards established by the Canadian Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, or the United Kennel Club. Therefore, it is anticipated that the determination of whether a dog is a Pit Bull is a question of fact based on evidence.

Grandfatherim Existina Pit Bulls/Other Breeds: There would be no legal requirement to “grandfather” dogs that have beensdesignated as Prohibited (banned). However, many municipalities that have banned pit bulls have grandfathered the pit bulls that existed on the date of the passing of the by-law.

Pit Bulls and the PoundkeeDer: The Poundkeeper must comply with the Animals for Research Act for any dog that is in the Pound. According to that Act, where the dog has a means of identification, the operator shall notify the SPCA and take all reasonable steps to find and notify the owner of the dog. If the owner of the dog claims the dog within 3 days after impoundment and pays all impoundment and other fees or fines, the poundkeeper may return the dog to its owner. The operator of a Pound cannot destroy a dog during a period of 3 days after impoundment (the period of redemption), with certain exceptions relating to the illness or injury of the dog, or if the owner requests in writing that it be destroyed. Furthermore, after the 3 day redemption period, the Poundkeeper shall not destroy a dog (unless there is a written request from the owner to do so, or is ordered to do so by a veterinarian or

8

inspector, is ill or injured, or cannot sell it to a research facility) but may return it to it‘s owner subject to payment of feedfines, sell it (as a pet, for hunting, or for working purposes), or sell it to a research facility. There appears to be no authority at this time whereby a Poundkeeper could direct that a Pit Bull or other dog be euthanized, except in compliance with the Animals for Research Act. The proposed provincial legislation would give the Poundkeeper such authority, but at this time it appears not to exist.

Prohibitincl Dog Ownership Section 5 of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) currently provides the authority to seek a court order, where a dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal, that the owner be prohibited from owning another dog during a specified period of time. Therefore, it is recommended that should such a prohibition be sought, it be sought through the process as set out in DOLA.

Reaulatincr Ownership of Dogs in Multiple Dwellina or Lodaincl House It is possible that the by-law could be challenged on the basis of a Charter argument, potentially that the by-law prevents an owner from owning a designated dog based on where the owner lives. However, if challenged, the by-law provision would be argued to be saved under s. I of the Charter in that it is a reasonable limit on a Charter right, and its salutary effect is greater than any harm imposed by it.

Impact of Introduction of Bill 132 On October 26, 2004, the Province introduced Bill 132 which received 1 st Reading to amend the Dog Owners’ LiabiMy Act and the Animals for Research Act. in fact be passed, and if it is passed, when it will be passed. The legislation, if passed would:

It is unknown at this time whether this Bill will

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

. 6.

Authorize the commencement of a court proceeding under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act against a dog owner where the dog poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals or against a person who contravenes the Act. Prohibit the owning, breeding, transferring, abandoning, importing and training to fight pit bulls Pit bulls that were resident or born in Ontario within 90 days of the coming into force of the legislation would not be banned. These so-called ”grandfathered” pit bulls would be termed “restricted” and would have to comply with the provisions of the Act and any forthcoming Regulations. Provide for search and seizure of dogs under a warrant, or in a public place without a warrant. Provide that in a court proceeding, the onus is on the owner of the dog to prove it is not a pit’bull. Provide that the court may order that an owner be prohibited from owning another dog during a specified period of time. Provide that a poundkeeper may destroy a pit bull where it has possession of a pit bull that is not a grandfathered pit bull (by amendment to the Animals for Research Act).

If such legislation is passed, the City’s by-law would have to be in conformity with that legislation and not conflict with it. The by-law could conceivably be stricter than the provincial legislation, as long as there were no conflicts, and still be held up in court. In relation to pit bulls, the Bill specifically provides that where there is a conflict between the proposed legislation and a municipal by-law relating to pit bulls, the provision that is the most restrictive in relation to controls or bans on pit bulls prevails. Presumably, then, if the City chose not to grandfather existing pit bulls, this more restrictive approach would be upheld by the proposed legislation. There is no similar authority in the proposed legislation for other breeds of dogs, therefore the City would be relying solely on the provisions of the existing Municipal Act, 2007 for its authority to ban and regulate these other breeds.

If the City passed a by-law and the Province subsequently enacted legislation or regulation that conflicted with our by-law, the City could amend its by-law to conform. If the City did not pass a by-law and decided to wait for provincial legislation, it is not known how long that wait would be, it could be a matter of days, or months or even years.

9

6. Identification of Implications (Administration & Enforcement) in Implementing these By4a ws

Implementation of either by-law will have impacts in four main areas:

1.

2.

3.

4.

City staff program management - the resource implications of the new program are not known at this time. It is anticipated that during start-up, City staff time devoted to the new by-law will be required in information dissemination, dispute resolution, by-law interpretation, licensing cost structures, fine collection and general contract administration. After one year this time commitment should diminish significantly.

City staff/elected officials/other associated with issue management and appeals - based on experience in other jurisdictions, a dog owner’s appeal committee will be required for dog designation. Some appeals could become quite lengthy particularly for dogs that will designated under breed specific by-laws.

Contractor administration of the new by-law - the registration and licensing process of dogs classified into various categories will be a significant undertaking. Potentially between 1,500 and 1,600 dogs could be reclassified as grandfathered into the system under a ban or regulated system and require special licensing. Other services that would be required by a contractor may include information dissemination , dispute resolution , appearances at appeals, and by-law interpretation.

Contractor enforcement - enforcement of the new by-laws will be a significant undertaking particularly during the early phases of implementation. Areas of concern include:

the challenges associated with identifying certain breeds due to the increasing number of cross breeds in the system the number of calls from Londoners who identify dogs that are potentially dangerous and must be investigated to determine if this is the case dealing with non-compliance for prohibited dogs (i.e., seizing a dog on private property) liability issues associated with the wrong designation applied to a dog during an appeal; not taking action in an appropriate timeframe the need for additional enforcement vehicles and shelter facility space contract structure and interaction with current contractor

7. Key Decisions that Must be Made by Municipal Council

A number of key decisions will be required from ETC and ultimately from Municipal Council as the draft by-laws are examined and finalized. City staff also recognize that additional research is required, noted in the next section, to assist in the decision-making process. The Public Participation Meeting scheduled for November 16, 2004 will likely generate new information that will also require a decision and/or further research. The current list of decisions can be divided into the following main areas:

Which by-law should be implemented (Le., the Prohibiting By-law or the Regulating By-law)?

If the Prohibiting By-law is selected, which breeds should be prohibited (Le., just Pit Bulls or the ones that are currently listed in the draft by-law which include Rottweillers, Akitas and Presa Canarios)? Should other breeds be added to the prohibited list noting that information will also be required to support the decision?

Should prohibited breeds be grandfathered and under what conditions or should these dog owners be provided a timeframe to relocate the dog?

What number of conditions (e.g., from the attached By-law schedules) should be included to obtain and/or keep a license? Should some conditions be breed specific or only selected and applied in specific circumstances?

What minimum standards are acceptable for obedience training? The standards should be established whereby the majority of dog obedience trainers can implement the training and provide appropriate certification for the dog.

What financing structures should be established to fund the activities required under the proposed by-laws? The current City Animal Care & Control program is funded about 50% by user fees (licenses and cat identification tags) and 50% from general taxes. How much higher should the

10

licensing fee be for dogs that are determined to be either prohibited dogs or restricted dogs, dangerous dogs or potentially dangerous dogs? Should administration and enforcement activities under the new by-laws be full cost recovery, 75% user fees and 25% general taxes or the current 50%/50% allocation? Should adjustments to the licensing fees for all dogs be made to offset some of the total new costs?

How should start-up and transition costs be handled including public education and awareness? ’

Should a separate tenderhequest for proposal be released for the new services or negotiate with the existing service provider? Is there a role for the London Humane Society?

Should Municipal Council enact a by-law or wait until further details are available from the Province of Ontario?

8. Key Areas Requiring Further Investigation

Research into the following areas will begin in November:

Obtain implementation details (e.g., enforcement and prosecution challenges), program cost and funding arrangements and details on start-up issues and concerns from additional jurisdictions that deal with different classes of dangerous dogs in particular prohibited dogs. (Note: Specific details have already been obtained from the Cities of Kitchener and Mississauga).

Prepare detailed costs estimates for implementing the changes and different scenarios for cost recovery (e.g., specific license fees).

Undertake additional research into the aggressive or potentially aggressive nature and potential severity of biting incidents of specific breeds including Akitas, Presa Canarios and Rottweillers and other breeds that may be of concern.

Obtain details from jurisdictions that have repealed breed-specific legislation and by-laws (ordinances) and determine why these changes were made.

Undertake further dialogue with the Province of Ontario with respect to the proposed amendments to the Dog Owner’s Liability Act and determine potential implications to the City of London?

Identify the typical makeup of “dog designation appeal committees’’ used in other jurisdictions.

Identify potential minimum standards and/or minimum training that should be undertaken for owners of dogs designed in either by-law

Conclusions: The information contained in this report will provide important background information for the public participation meeting scheduled for November 16, 2004.

City staff believe that some action and changes to the City’s existing by-laws are appropriate but require more time to identify the necessary requirements to implement a by-law of this nature, to identify potential implications of the proposed by-laws including the cost (start-up costs and on-going costs) and solutions to recover some or all the costs of the additional work anticipated for these new by- laws.

City staff must also monitor the progress of the Provincial Government with respect to the amendments to the Dog Owner’s Liabibty Act and its implications in proposing a breed specific by-law in the City of London.

Acknowledgements:

This report has been reviewed by Pat McNally, Director, Water, Environment & Customer Relations.

11

JAYMNFORD, MA., M.P.A. DIVISION MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & CUSTOMER RELATIONS

RECOMMENDED BY:

PETER W. STEBLIN, P.ENG. GENERAL MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES & CITY ENGINEER

PREPARED BY:

I LYNN MARSHALL, SOLICITOR '

RECOMMENDED BY:

-0AMES P. BARBER, CITY SOLICITOR

October 27,2004 /JSY:\Shared\SolWaste\ETC-BoC Reports\REP102704.doc

Appendix A Copy of Municipal Council Resolution from the September 7, 2004 Council Meeting

Appendix B Summary Overview of Selected Jurisdictions for Breed Specific or Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog By-laws

Appendix C Positions of Various Animal Welfare Organizations on Breed Specific Legislation and Dangerous Dog Legislation

Appendix D-1 A By-law to Prohibit, Regulate and License Certain Breeds of Dogs and to Regulate and License Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs within the City of London

Appendix D-2 A By-law to Regulate and License Certain Breeds of Dogs and to Regulate and License Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs within the City of London

. . . .

300 Dufferin Avenue ' P.O. Bax 5035

London, ON N6A4L9 '

12

London C A N A D A APPENDIX A

September 8, 2004

J. P. Barber City Solicitor

Lhereby certify that the Municipal Council, at its session held on September 7, 2004 resolved:

8. That, the City Solicitor BE REQUESTED to draft a By-law to address the matter of dangerous breeds of dogs and to report back thereon at a future meeting of the Environmental and Transportation Committee '(ETC) such draft by-law'to include but .not be limited to the following:

\

the confinement of the dog while on the lanqs and premises of the owner to the dwelling or to a pen: a requirement to keep the dangerous dog under the effective control of an adult person and under leash at all times when it is not confined;

to securely attach a muztle to the dog at all times when it is not confined; to have a microchip inserted in the dog by a licensed veterinarian; to provide the new address and telephone number of the owner if the owner is moving the dog; to provide the name, address and telephone number of the new owner if selling or giving away the dog; to advise of the death of the dog; to advise immediately if the dangerous dog is running at large or has bitten or attacked any person or animal; to purchase and display, at the entrance to the owner's dwelling which a person would normally approach, a warning sign; not to keep or harbour the dog in a multiple dwelling or a lodging house; to prohibit keeping the dog where it has been found to be running at large contrary to the regulations in the by-law; higher licence fees for such dogs; higher pound fees for such dogs; higher penalties where such dogs are found to be running at large; the revocation of a licence for any dog the keeping of which is prohibited under the by-law; and banning of any particular dog breed; lowering licencing fees for dogs; and requiring dog owners to enroll their do.g(s) in obedience training.

it being noted that a public participation meeting will be held in Connection with this matter in early November 2004; and

it being further noted that the ETC heard a verbal delegation from D. Durrand, 4-770 Fanshawe Park Road and received a communication dated August 17, 2004 from M. .Portis, 43 Evergreen Anenue, a Communication dated August 27, 2004 from A. Papmehl, and a communication dated August 30,2004 from R. Thornton with respect to this matter. (811 8/ETC) (AS AMENDED) (1 .I .4.04)

Kevin Bain City Clerk 4rg

cc: . D. Durand, 4-770 Fanshawe Park Road, London, ON N6G5B4 M. Portis, 43'Evergreen Avenue, London, ON N0J 1A8 '

A. PaRmehi, 3 Southfield Crescent, London, ON N6R.268 R. Thornton, 20 Windsor Avenue, London, ON N6C 127 J. Stanford, Manager Environmental Programs 8t Customer Relations ETC Deferred

The Corporation of the City of London Office:, 51 9-661 -6400 Fax: 51 9-661 -4892 Committees, Council0london.ca www.london.ca . I

1

I ng e rso I No Yes

Ottawa No Yes Ability to designate “vicious dogs” within animal control by-law

13

APPENDIX B

Summary Overview of Selected Jurisdictions for Breed Specific or Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog Bylaws

There are a few examples of breed specific by-laws in Ontario and others parts of Canada. Dangerous/vicious/aggressive dog designations are more common features and are incorporated in standalone by-laws or more commonly in an Animal Control (or similar) by-law.

I Southwestern Ontario

I windsor Yes Yes (September 27,

2004), Pit Bulls

I Chatham-Kent Yes Ability to designate “dangerous dogs”

within animal control by-law Yes (draft only),

Pit Bulls

1 St.Thomas 1 No I Yes I 1 Cambridge I No I Yes I 1 Waterloo Yes Some “grandfathering” from 1996 and

11997 Yes, Pit Bulls

I Kitchener Yes, Pit Bulls Yes Some “grandfathering” from 1996 and

11997

Yes Bra n tfo rd Yes (draft only), Pit Bulls

No No - ~ - ~

Have Dangerous Dog license fee although no definition of a “Dangerous Dog” appears in their I animal control by-law.

Sarnia

~~ 1 Woodstock I No I Yes 1 Potentially Dangerous Dogs Bylaw

I Other Ontario Municipalities ~ - ~- - ~ ~~ I Mississauga 1 No I No ~ 7 Can issue ”Muzzle Orders”

~~~ ~

~- - - ~ - I Oakville I No I Yes [ “Biting or Dangerous Dogs” By-law

I Hamilton I No I No I 1 Brampton I No I No I I Toronto I No I No I

I Markham No Yes Ability to designate ”vicious dogs”

within animal control by-law

Oshawa No Yes Ability to designate “aggressive animals” and place “muzzling & control orders” as part of “Responsible Pet Owners” by- law

Kings ton No Yes ~ ~

Ability to designate “vicious dogs” within animal control by-law

14

Calgary

Edmonton

Other Canadian Municipalities

No Yes

No Yes

Winnipeg

Regina

Yes, Pit Bull Terrier, Straddforshire Bull

Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier

No No

Yes

Halifax No Yes “Registration and Regulation of Dogs” By-law

“Fierce or Dangerous Dogs” By-law

Ability to designate “Vicious Dogs” within animal control by-law

Ability to designate “Restricted Dog” within Animal Licensing and Control By-law

There is Province wide ”Dangerous Dog” legislation

Montreal I No I No I

Al;J,#&l#

Humane Societies Ontario Society for the httD://www.osDca.on.ca/he home. ht d d Prevention of Cruelty to ml Animals (i.e. Ontario Humane Society) Nation at Com pan ion d d Animal Coalition

15

Canadian Veterinary Medical Association

APPENDIX C

httD://wWW.CVm a-acrnv .orq

Positions of Various Animal Welfare Organizations on Breed Specific Legislation and Dangerous Dog Legislation

Ottawa Humane Society Toronto Humane Society

Dog Legislation Council of Canada Good Pooch.com American Humane Association American Kennel Club Association of Pet Dog Trainers (US) National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

Introduction A web-search was undertaken to determine the positions of various organizations on Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and Dangerous Dog Legislation. The focus was on larger organizations. Table C-I provides a summary of organization’s positions on the following:

http://www.ottawahumane.cal d d http:/lwww.torontohumanesocietv.c d d _om/ httD://www.doaleaislationcouncilcan d d ada.orq www..aoodDooch.com d http://www.americanhumane.orq d d

h tt D://WWW. a kc.orcI/. d d http://www.apdt.com d d

http://www.nadoi.orq d d

0 For Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and By-laws 0 Against Breed Specific Legislation and By-laws 0 For Dangerous Dog Legislation and By-laws 0 Against Dangerous Dog Legislation and By-laws

The text of the various organizations’ positions is included below.

Table C-I: Summary of Positions of Various Animal Welfare Organizations on Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and Dangerous Dog (DD) Legislation and By-laws

Canadian Federation of Humane Societies On October 15, 2004, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS) released a news release that included advice for the Province of Ontario including:

0 The Province’s proposed breed ban legislation is not a be all and end all solution that will solve the province’s dog bite problem. The CFHS applauds the government‘s push to hold dog owners more accountable for their pets’ actions. The proposed legislation, however, is incomplete and could lead to difficulties in terms of enforcement. For example, the government needs to carefully consider the difficulty of identifying which dogs it will ban, and whether mixes of those breeds will also be banned.

The CFHS requests that the Ontario government consider the creation of a data collection program - as was recommended by a Coroner’s inquest following a fatal dog attack in 1998 -

16

to help governments and the public better track the number of dog bites that occur in the Province, the breeds or mixes involved, the reproductive status of those dogs, etc. Such information can lead to the creation or revision of legislation based on empirical, statistical information rather than anecdotes and media reports.

The McGuinty government must address the spayingheutering of dogs as part of a broader, more comprehensive commitment to reducing the number of dog bites in Ontario. Intact animals - particularly un-neutered males - are often the ones responsible for serious dog bites. American studies have shown that un-neutered males are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered males or any females. . . . . . . not to mention helping to reduce other problems such as pet overpopulation and roaming.

The CFHS also encourages the Ontario government to study the issue of breeding licenses, as has been proposed in Quebec. It has long been acknowledged that poor breeding and early socialization, such as is found in puppy mills and backyard breeders, can contribute to unsound temperament in a dog of any breed. Breeders have a public safety responsibility to place well-bred and sound dogs‘into the hands of the public.

0 Most of these recommendations were made more than 6 years ago during the Coroner’s inquest into the death of Courtney Trempe. The 8-year-old Stouffville, ON girl was mauled to death in April 1998 by her neighbour’s Bullmastiff. To date, none of the 36 recommendations made by the jury has been implemented in the province of Ontario.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals On September 3, 2004, the Ontario SPCA released a news release that called for a wide-ranging strategy to combat dog aggression. The Ontario SPCA indicated that any breed-specific ban would not be effective for the following reasons:

may create more problems than it solves, owners will purchase other breeds, breed bans are difficult to enforce, and does not address more fundamental problems which create and perpetuate dog aggression.

The Ontario SPCA called for a province-wide task force to include such issues as:

Improving animal control and welfare legislation, including the improvement and enforcement of the Dog Owners Liability Act; Regulating breeding and kennels, restricting indiscriminate breeding and deliberate breeding for aggression; Eliminating dog fighting operations and banning the breeding or training of dogs for fighting; Restricting attack training of dogs for personal protection; Promoting responsible pet acquisition and ownership, including training and socialization; Establishing spayheuter programs to reduce numbers of unwanted animals and indiscriminate breeding; Increasing education and dog bite prevention programs; Providing increased resources for enforcement of legislation and education; Examining- the legislation and experience of agencies throughout Canada, and abroad.

National Companion Animal Coalition The National Companion Animal Coalition (NCAC) includes members such as the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Kennel Club and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada. In March 2004, NCAC published a document entitled “Reducing the Incidence of Dog Bites and Attacks: Do Breed Bans Work?” which included the following:

There are several reasons why breed-specific bans are problematic: There is no objective method of establishing lineage of cross bred dogs or dogs which are not registered with a national kennel club. In addition, many municipalities do not have access to qualified persons that could accurately perform breed identification. Dangerous dogs may exist in every breed and breed cross. Dangerous temperament and behaviour are products of many factors other than just breed. This type of ban will result in exclusion of some dangerous dogs, and inclusion of dogs that are not dangerous. The incidence of dog bites has not been shown to be reduced by restricting the ownership of certain dog breeds.

17

The NCACS recommendations to municipalities regarding dangerous or vicious dogs are to use: 0

0

Significant fines for owners of dogs that are involved in a bite incident. Well-established guidelines for professional temperament assessment of a dog as dangerous or vicious. Banning of specific breeds is not recommended because of the difficulty in identifying the genetic origin of many dogs. A protocol to deal with dogs that have been professionally assessed as dangerous or vicious (eg. euthanasia or confinement). Significant incentives for owners to spayheuter, socialize and train their pets. Confinement laws such as: leash laws, running at large laws, property confinement laws, use of muzzles. Public awareness and education programs promoting responsible pet ownership.

0

The Canadian Kennel Club The Canadian Kennel Club (CKC) has been dealing with Breed Specific (Dangerous andlor Vicious Dogs) legislation since 1987. The CKC supports dangerous and/or vicious dog legislation which would serve to protect the public. It does not believe that banning of specific breeds is an effective solution. CKC supports more public education, stronger enforcement of existing by-laws, and stiffer penalties for owners which are more effective than breed specific legislation. The following position has been established by the CKC:

The Canadian Kennel Club supports dangerous and/or vicious dog legislation, which would serve to protect the public from dangerous dogs. The Canadian Kennel Club does not support breed- specific legislation. The Canadian Kennel Club's opposition to breed-specific legislation is based on the fact that a dangerous temperament is a product of many factors, and not by breed alone. Thus, breed-specific legislation may include dogs which are not dangerous, while excluding those which are.

The Canadian Kennel Club considers banning a particular type of dog as a reactionary measure with little effect, and one that will only serve to push the indiscriminate breeders and/or owners underground, or to another breed not included in the legislation.

The label of "vicious" and/or "dangerous" should be determined by an individual dog's behaviour, and not by its breed or appearance.

The Canadian Kennel Club believes that dog owners should be responsible for the actions of their dogs, and that laws should:

Impose stern penalties on irresponsible owners; Establish a well defined procedure. for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous, which includes, if necessary, the destruction of such animals; The Canadian Kennel Club endorses and encourages the enforcement of: o Leash laws; "Running at large" laws; Confinement on private property - childproof from

the outside and dog-proof from the inside.

The Canadian Kennel Club will continue to support and assist those who share our concern for the protection and advancement of all breeds

Canadian Veterinary Medical Association The following position has been stated by this organization:

"The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) supports dangerous dog legislation provided that it does not refer to specific breeds. This legislation should be directed at fostering the safety and protection of the general public from dogs classified as dangerous. The CVMA encourages and supports responsible pet ownership." Background: Aggressive dogs, regardless of breed, are. a significant threat to humans and other animals. The CVMA recognizes that aggressiveness in dogs is often a product of inappropriate methods of genetic selection, rearing, and training. The CVMA recommends that municipalities considering dangerous dog legislation consult the model municipal by-laws proposed by the National Companion Animal Coalition. Reference: National Companion Animal Coalition. Sample Municipal Bylaw Regulating the Keeping and Controlling of Companion Animals. 1999. Available on the CVMA Web site at www.canadianveterinarians .net.

Ottawa Humane Society With respect to the BSL, the Ottawa Humane Society (OHS) does not support legislation that names specific animal breeds as being inherently dangerous or aggressive. The OHS encourages and supports responsible breeding, rearing and training of all animals to prevent and/or control aggressive be haviou r.

The OHS offers this advice:

18

The OHS recognizes that the development of municipal bylaws concerning aggressive or dangerous animals in certain well-defined circumstances is advisable and recommends that they be actively enforced. However, these bylaws must clearly define ‘aggressive’ and ‘dangerous’ and must apply to all animals, not only those of a certain breed. Animal owners are responsible for knowing the content and requirements of the municipal bylaws to which they are subject, and should in the case of a vicious animal:

indicate the presence of a vicious animal on their property; and, . respect existing muzzling, leashing and fencing bylaws.

The OHS believes that it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure their animal does not endanger other animals or the community at large.

Toronto Humane Society The Toronto Humane Society believes that BSL will not work with Pit Bulls and that the entire animal control and welfare program needs to examined. The organization specifically notes on their website:

The opportunity now exists for government to look at the whole issue of animal welfare and community safety, not just breed banning - a knee-jerk reaction. Breed banning will prove to be only a band aid solution. Federal, provincial and municipal governments need to deal with the pressing need for better animal welfare legislation in Ontario. Current laws are antiquated and ineffective and lag far behind the other provinces and many other countries.

The answer to this serious issue is tougher legislation to give animal welfare agencies the tools to do their job properly. As well, a thoughtful program of breeder registration, responsible pet ownership that includes knowledge, kindness and dog neutering will help eliminate these tragic bite incidents.

Dog Legislation Council of Canada The Dog Legislation Council of Canada (DLCC) was formed in 2003 and includes representatives from rescue volunteers, owners, dog trainers, breeders and handlers that promote responsible dog ownership of all dogs. The DLCC has two main objectives:

to promote and support responsible dog ownership. to encourage and foster the implementation of non-breed specific dangerous dog by-laws. Non-breed specific dangerous dog by-laws designate dogs as ‘dangerous’ based on behaviour rather than breed. These by-laws allow for efficient animal control without pointlessly punishing responsible dog owners. They address concerns with dog aggression and recognize the role of human negligence behind most incidents.

The DLCC believes that non-specific dangerous dog by-laws provide greater flexibility for municipalities to address negligent dog owners while not penalizing responsible owners for their personal choice in breed.

Good Pooch.com GoodPooch.com is against any restrictions of dog ownership based on a dog’s size, gender, reproductive status, breed, or phenotype. The following statistics are posted on GoodPooch.com and provide a basis for comparison of safety:

1.

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Do you think dog attacks are a serious threat to public safety? Every recent dog-related fatality in Canada has involved dogs and victims residing within the same home. The same goes for the majority of serious attacks. Dogs with their owners in public account for the least number of bites. Most dog bites occur on or directly adjacent to the dog owner’s property. For the most part, the owner of the dog involved in a serious attack is typically the parent, relative or friend of the victim. A report from the (U.S.) Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 8% of the gun- related fatalities in’its study were caused by children under age 6. According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, in one year, over 1,200 times as many American children were killed by their parents or caretakers than were killed by dogs in Canada. Based on a report by the BBC, in just one three month period, twice as many British people died over hedge disputes as have been killed in the past two years from dog attacks in Canada. In a Bureau of Labor study from 1992-1 997, 11 4 workers were killed in cattle attacks, yet there was not one death attributed to a dog attack.

19

9. From the National Safety Council, 15 times as many American children are shot by other children as are killed annually by dogs in Canada, on average.

I O . According to the book, Culture of Fear, 100 times as many people are killed as a result of a fall in the bathtub than by dogs.

American Humane Association The following positions and statements are contained on the American Humane website:

American Humane recognizes that public safety is a concern with regard to dogs that have been determined to be dangerous or vicious. American Humane supports local legislation to protect the community from dangerous animals, but does not advocate laws that target a specific breed of dog. American Humane encourages communities to hold pet owners responsible for the actions of the animals in their care.

Communities may elect to adopt "dangerous" or "vicious" dog laws to help protect their constituents. Such laws may stipulate harsher restrictions on these dogs such as housing requirements, fencing, leash length restrictions, muzzles, posted warning signs, sterilization, additional licensing, behavior training, and liability insurance requirements. Additional stipulations may include harsher penalties and restrictions for violating the ordinances in place. Communities considering institution of such requirements should consider the additional financial implications and support for enforcement by animal control officers. American Humane encourages communities to educate the public, especially children, on dog behavior and what they can do to protect themselves against an attack.

Vicious or dangerous dogs tend to be, by definition, dogs that without provocation, have attacked or behaved in a terrorizing manner and/or have been trained for or used for animal fighting. Any dog, whether previously labeled as vicious or not, that has attacked' humans or domestic animals may be euthanized when local laws and jurisprudence are followed. The owner should be given a period of time and process by which to appeal.

American Humane understands that any breed of dog can bite, and as such, believes that breed- specific legislation does not effectively protect the community from dangerous animals. Conversely, not all dogs of a given breed are dangerous. Legislation banning particular breeds can unnecessarily discriminate against dogs that are not dangerous, and does little to protect the community from dog bite incidents. Such legislation can often have unintended consequences such as spawning black market interest, indiscriminant breeding practices] and subsequent overpopulation issues. Additionally, there can be confusion when dealing with "mixed-breed" dogs, which can make legislation difficult to enforce. Therefore] American Humane supports local legislation to protect the community from dangerous animals, but does not advocate laws that target a specific breed of dog.

American Kennel Club The American Kennel Club (AKC) supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs:

We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be "dangerous" may need to be humanely destroyed. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.

Association of Pet Dog Trainers The following statements reflect the opinion of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers.

The Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) supports the adoption or enforcement of a program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that is fair, non-discriminatory and addresses dogs that are shown to be dangerous by their actions.

The APDT opposes any law that deems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance, breed or phenotype. Canine temperaments are widely varied, and behavior cannot be predicted by physical features such as head shape, coat length, muscle to bone ratio, etc. The only predictor of behavior is behavior.

As an organization comprised of dog trainers, behaviorists and other animal professionals, the APDT is fully aware that any dog can bite, any dog can maim, and any dog can kill. A dangerous or vicious dog is a product of a combination of individual genetics, upbringing, socialization, and

20

lack of proper training. The solution to preventing dog bites is education of owners, breeders, and the general public about aggression prevention, not legislation directed at certain breeds.

Singling out and publicly demonizing certain breeds as dangerous is unfair, discriminatory, and does an immense disservice to those breeds and the people who care about them. Even more chilling, breed specific legislation encourages the faulty public perception of other breeds as being inherently safe. This can lead misguided individuals to engage in unsafe conduct with other breeds that can result in injury or death by individual representatives of those breeds mistakenly perceived as safe. Also, designating certain breeds as inherently dangerous implies to the public that behavior is not effectively influenced, positively or negatively, by training. This misconception will likely produce a growing number of dangerous dogs as misinformed, complacent dog owners fail to practice responsible aggression-prevention measures.

The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors, Inc. The National Association of Dog Obedience instructors, Inc. (NADOI) strongly opposes breed specific legislation which targets or discriminates against certain dogs based only on their breed or appearance. BADOl claims these by-laws are unfair because they assume that a dog may be dangerous simply because of breed rather than focus behaviour of the owner:

Since 1965, NADOI has worked to help people train their dogs to be well behaved. Also, NADOI educates dog owners about their responsibility not only to their dogs but to their communities. Ordinances against dangerous dogs, unattended and loose dogs, nuisance barking, and other objectionable dog behaviors should be enacted and aggressively enforced. These laws, unlike breed specific laws, force all dog owners to be responsible for the behavior of their dogs.

y:\shared\solwaste\etc-boc reports\repl02704.doc

“PROHIBITING BY-LAW APPENDIX D-I

Bill No.

By-law No.

A By-law to Prohibit, Regulate and License Certain Breeds of Dogs and to Regulate and License Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs within the City of London

respecting matters within the sphere of jurisdiction of Animals;

AND WHEREAS Section 104 of the Municipal Act, 2007 defines ”ar animal kingdom, other than a human;

AND WHEREAS Section l O ( 1 ) of the Municipal Acf, 2007

AND WHEREAS Section lO(2) of the Act provides persons if the persons constitute different classes of

AND WHEREAS Section 9(3) of the Act provides tha matter; and, as a part of that power, re system of licences, permits, approvals ( requirement of obtaining, continuing to hofl

AND WHEREAS Sections 103 and 105 of by-laws regulating or prohibitingranimais;

specific in its application and may differentiate in any w appropriate;

ulate or prohibit respecting the pecting the matter, provide for a atter and impose conditions as a approval or registration;

ic provisions with respect to

AND WHEREAS Secti may prohibit and regulate with the opinion of council, are or could become the

ogs, aggressive dogs and dogs that bite are nce within the City;

nicipality may regulate matters not specifically , safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the

ty and well-being of the inhabitants of the City of

on November 16, 2004, at which time submissions from

edient to pass this by-law;

ncil of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows: THEREFORE t

Definitions

- -

AND WHEREAS Secti

AND WHER

1. For the purposes of this by-law, the following definitions shall apply:

[“Akita” means any dog which has the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly conforming fo the standards of an Akita as established by the Canadian Kennel Club or the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club.]

‘

“Appeal Committee” means a Committee of Council as designated by the City for the purpose of this by-law for hearing appeals following the issuance of a dog designation notice.

“Animal Control Officer’’ shall mean a person appointed by the Poundkeeper, whose duties include the enforcement of this by-law, or the City Clerk or his or her designate, or the Chief of Police or his or her designate;

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #I2 October 29 2004

[“Canario” means any dog which physical characteristics predominantly conforming to the standards of a Canario as established by the Canadian Kennel Club or the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club.]

“Certificate” means a certificate, confirmation or other report, in writing, of a veterinary surgeon evidencing that a particular dog therein’identified has been spayed or neutered (as the case may be);

“Chief of Police” means the Chief of Police of the City, and includes his or her duly authorized representatives;

“City” means The Corporation of the City of London;

“City Clerk” means the Clerk of the Corporation of the City of London;

“Contained” means to be confined: (i) within the Owner’s dwelling unit; or _ _ (ii) in an enclosed pen constructed with a secure top and sid secure bottom effectively

2

attached to the sides, or as otherwise approved provide humane shelter for the dog while p preventing the entry therein of unsupervised chi

(iii) within a fenced yard, as approved by the Pound 18 years of age.

dkeeper. The pen shall scaping therefrom and

by a person at least

“Control” means that a dog is on a leash o under the control of a person 18 years of does not include sound or voice command;

“Council” means the Council of the City;

“Dangerous Dog” means a dog: ed, bitten, or caused injury to a

kept or permitted to be kept

’s Zoning by-law to mean a building containing

nit as defined in the City’s Zoning By-law to mean a single

ich is occupied and used or capable of being occupied and used as a sekeeping establishment;

, rope or other material that is of sufficient strength to restrain a dog, affixed to a collar and of t more than one metre in length;

“Licence” means a licence issued by the City Clerk or Poundkeeper under this by-law; . “Lodging House” means a Lodging House, Class 2 as defined in the City’s Zoning by-law to mean a residential building which is used to provide lodging units for hire or gain directly or indirectly to more than three persons, with or without meals, and shall not include a nursing home, hotel, motel, hostel, group home, bed and breakfast establishment, emergency care establishment, or a residence of an educational institution.

“Lodging Unit” means a Lodging Unit as defined in the City’s Zoning by-law to mean a room with sleeping facilities, either alone or in conjunction with another room or rooms.

“Mitigating Factor” means the following circumstances which excuse the aggressive behaviour of a dog:

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #12 October 29 2004

(i) the dog was, at the time of the aggressive behaviour, acting in defence to an attack from a

(ii) the dog was, at the time of the aggressive behaviour, acting in defence of its young or

(iii) the dog was, at the time of the aggressive behaviour, being teased, provoked or tormented.

person or domestic animal;

reacting to a person or domestic animal trespassing on the property of its Owner; or

“Multiple Dwelling” means a building containing more than three dwelling units but shall not include a street town house dwelling or semi-detached dwelling;

“Municipality” means the City;

“Muzzle” means a humane fastening or covering device placed over a dog’s mouth and of sufficient strength to prevent the dog from biting, and “muzzled” shall have a corresponding meaning;

“Owner” means any person who owns, keeps, possesses, harb for any length of time, whether or not that person has a licence for t a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor;

as a guardian of a dog nd, where the Owner is

“Pit Bull” means: (i) Pit Bull Terrier; (ii) American Pit Bull Terrier; (iii) Staffordshire Bull Terrier; (iv) American Staffordshire Terrier; or (v)

t

Any dog which has the appearance an the standards for any of the above, American Kennel Club or the United K

“Potentially Dangerous Don” means a don that

“Pound” means premises that ar have been impounded pursuant to Pound keeper;

“Poundkeeoer” me;

“Premises”

“Prohibited 0 (i) A Pit

Dlished bv the Canadian K

‘n or apparent attitude of attack;

aracteristics predo min or

ny mitigating factors, chase

enance or disposal of dogs nd which is operated by

n business as Animal Care

3

lg to the

IS or

that the

and

og, or an Akita dog] which is not a Restricted

rio dog, or an Akita dog], previously designated as to be kept by its Owner in violation of the

as a Dangerous Dog, that is kept or permitted to be kept by its irements for such dog.

or

Jog that is a Pit Bull [a Rottweiler dog, a Canario dog, or an Akita dog] the City on the date of passing of this by-law and for which the Owner

obtaine Re Dog Licence within 90 days of the passing of this by-law;

gg) “Restricted d’ by-law to the Ow

be ’ ’ means a licence issued by the City within 90 days of the passing of this of a Pit Bull [a Rottweiler dog, a Canario dog, or an Akita dog].

hh) [“Rottweiler” means any dog which has the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly conforming to the standards of a Rottweiler as established by the Canadian Kennel Club or the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club;

ii) “Run At Large” means a dog found in any place other than the premises of the Owner and not under physical control of an adult person by means of a leash of not more than one metre in length held by the person.

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft # I2 October 29 2004

4

2.

2.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

3.7.

3.8.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

By-law PH-4 Applicable

The requirements of this by-law, including licensing requirements, are in addition to the requirements, including licensing requirements, of the City of London Dog Control By-law PH-4.

Prohibited Doqs

No person shall keep or harbour a Prohibited Dog in the City.

Where the Poundkeeper identifies a dog as a Prohibited Dog, the Poundkeeper shall designate the dog as a Prohibited Dog by giving notice to the Owner of such dog. The notice shall include the items listed in Schedule “A “ to this by-law.

Where the Owner of a dog who is given a notice from the Pound Prohibited Dog requests in writing to the City Clerk within ten (IO) notice, the Appeal Committee shall hold a hearing pursuant to th

ignating such dog as a ys of the giving of such Powers Procedure Act

within sixty (60) working days of the City Clerk’s receipt of the r

The Appeal Committee, after holding a hearing, may reco Prohibited Dog designation.

Where a hearing has been requested, the decision

Where no hearing is requested, the decision o

Where there is a final decision to designate the d

cil affirm or rescind the

Where the Owner is required to such euthanasia shall be at the

er this by-law, the costs of such costs by action or by

ario Dog, or Akita Dog] situated in the City of Restricted Dog by the Poundkeeper, shall have

en notice from the Poundkeeper designating such dog as a the City Clerk within ten (IO) working days of the giving of such

I I hold a hearing pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act erk’s receipt of the request for a hearing.

r holding a hearing, may recommend that Council affirm or rescind the

-law to obtain a Restricted Dog Licence.

4.5. Where a hearin been requested, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision.

4.6. Where no hearing is requested, the decision of the Poundkeeper shall be the final decision.

4.7 The Owner of a Restricted Dog is required to obtain a Restricted Dog Licence. .

4.8 The fee for a Restricted Dog Licence is set out in Schedule “ C to this by-law.

4.9 The conditions required to obtain, renew or continue to hold a Restricted Dog Licence are set out in Schedule “B “ to this by-law.

4.10 Where the Owner of a Pit Bull dog [Rottweiler Dog, Canario Dog, or Akita Dog] fails to comply with any of the conditions set out in Schedule “B“, all Restricted Dog Licences held by that Owner shall be revaked immediately by the Poundkeeper.

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #12 October 29 2004

4.1 1

4.12

4.13

5.

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.1 1

5.12

5.13

Where the Owner of a Pit Bull dog [Rottweiler Dog, Canario Dog, or Akita Dog] is convicted of any offences under this by-law, all Restricted Dog Licences held by that Owner shall be revoked immediately by the Poundkeeper.

Where a Restricted Dog Licence has been revoked, the Owner shall be required to permanently remove from the City the dog for which the Restricted Dog Licence was issued, or have the dog euthanized by a licensed veterinarian within ten (1 0) days after the revocation of the licence.

Where the Owner is required to have euthanized a dog for which a Restricted Dog Licence has been revoked, the costs of such euthanasia shall be at the Owner’s expense, and the City may recover such costs by action or by adding the costs to the tax roll and collecting them in the same manner as taxes.

Dangerous Dogs

5

Where a dog has attacked, bitten, or caused injury to a pers animal, in the absence of any mitigating factors, the Pou Dangerous Dog.

The Poundkeeper shall give notice to the Owner o include the items listed in Schedule “ A to this by-

Where the Owner of a dog who is given a no Dangerous Dog requests inwriting to the City notice, the Appeal Committee shall hold a he

The Appeal Committee, after holdi

antly injured a domestic signate such dog as a

. The notice shall

hat Council affirm or rescind the signation of the dog as a onditions of the Owner of a

e final decision.

oundkeeper shall be the final decision.

is required to obtain a Dangerous Dog Licence.

edule “ C to this by-law.

he Owner of a dog designated as a Dangerous Dog fails to out in Schedule “B”, all Dangerous Dog Licences held by that

diately by the Poundkeeper.

n, and the Owner of a dog designated as a Dangerous Dog is convicted , all Dangerous Dog Licences held by that Owner shall be revoked

Where a Dange s Dog Licence has been revoked, the Owner shall be required to permanently remove from the City the dog for which the Dangerous Dog Licence was issued, or have the dog euthanized by a licensed veterinarian within ten ( I 0) working days after the revocation of the licence.

Where the Owner is required to have euthanized a dog for which a Dangerous Dog Licence has been revoked, the costs of such euthanasia shall be at the Owner’s expense, and the City may recover such costs by action or by adding the costs to the tax roll and collecting them in the same manner as taxes.

6. Potentially Danaerous Dogs

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #I 2 October 29 2004

6

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

Where a dog has chased or approached any person or domestic animal in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, in the absence of any mitigating factors, the Poundkeeper shall designate such dog as a Potentially Dangerous Dog.

The Poundkeeper shall give notice to the Owner of the Potentially Dangerous Dog designation. The notice shall include the items listed in Schedule “A“ to this by-law.

Where the Owner of a dog who is given a notice from the Poundkeeper designating such dog as a Potentially Dangerous Dog requests in writing to the City Clerk within ten (IO) working days of the giving of such notice, the Appeal Committee shall hold a hearing pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Acf within sixty (60) days of the City Clerk’s receipt of the request for a hearing.

The Appeal Committee, after holding a hearing, may recommend that Council affirm or rescind the Potentially Dangerous Dog designation, and may recommend substituting its own conditions of the Owner of a Potentially Dangerous Dog pursuant to section 6.9.

Where a hearing has been requested, the decision of Council shal al decision.

Where no hearing is requested, the decision of the Poundkee

The Owner of a dog designated as a Potentially Dangecayi Dangerous Dog Licence.

The fee for a Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence

The conditions required to obtain, renew or cc are set out in Schedule “B” to this by-law.

6.10 Where there is a final decision, and t b Owner of a d fails to comply with any of the c Licences held by that Owner shal be deemed Dangerous Dogs.

6.1 1 Where there is a final decision. and the is convicted of any oa Owner shall be reva Dogs.

6.12 Where the d - -

the provisions Dangerous Do

7.2 No per& or a Potent

athe final decision.

o obtain a Potentially

ted as a Potentially Dangerous Dog “B”, all Potentially Dangerous Dog

in Schedule “ C to

I

Licence

srous Dog Licences held by that dogs shall be deemed Dangerous

plly Dangerous Dog has not contravened any of i from the date of designation, the Potentially on of the designation does not prevent the dog ngerous for a subsequent contravention of this itially Da

ise their Restricted Dog, Dangerous Dog, or Potentially Dangerous Dog this by-law.

II dog [Rottweiler Dog, Canario Dog, or Akita Dog], a Dangerous Dog, m t a A h n m 1 1 e linnnnn I imr l r r r 4h:r . L I B 1 A m . n

8. Prohibitions - General - Pit Bull Doa lRottweiler Don, Canario Doa, or Akita Dog1 or Dangerous Don or Potentially Dangerous Dog

8.1. No Owner of a Pit Bull dog [Rottweiler Dog, Canario Dog, or Akita Dog], or a Dangerous Dog, or a Potentially Dangerous Dog where required, shall:

(a) fail to prohibit the dog from attacking any human or domestic animal;

(b) fail to prohibit the dog from trespassing on any private property;

(c) fail to prohibit the dog from running at large;

(d) fail to contain the dog at all times when it is on the Owner’s premises;

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #12 October 29 2004

7

(e) fail to muzzle the dog when not contained on the Owner’s premises;

(f) keep or harbour the dog in a multiple dwelling or lodging house;

(9) keep or harbour the dog if it has not been spayed or neutered, where it is older than six months;

(h) have care or control of more than one Pit Bull dog [Rottweiler Dog, Canario Dog, or Akita Dog] or Dangerous Dog in a public place;

(i) allow the dog to be in the care or control of a person less than 18 years of age;

(j) fail to have the dog microchipped;

(k) fail to have insurance as required in this by-law;

(I) fail to display a warning sign supplied by the Poundkeeper at thedh dwelling;

’

(m) fail to provide the Poundkeeper with the new address and two (2) working days of moving;

(n) fail to notify the Poundkeeper immediately if the d I

(0) fail to leash the dog in a leash-free park;

(p) breed the dog;

(9) sell the dog.

any person or domestic animal;

9. General

Not ices 9.1. Any notices given

b y licence issued ex pi re thereafter

entrance to the Owner’s

ry or prepaid registered mail. the Owner’s last known address

been received on the third working day after the Where notice is

Poundkeeper shall not be liable for damages under the provisions of this by-law and no such

hall be valid from the date of its issue to December 3Ist, and

dog under this by-law, the City shall supply the Owner with a dog tag

e dog tag securely fixed on the dog at all times until the licence is renewed,

umber and the year in which it was issued.

9.5 The Owner

Exemptions 9.6 This by-law shall not apply to:

(a)+An animal shelter operated by the Poundkeeper or a shelter lawfully operated by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals OSPCA;

(b) Premises registered as a research facility in accordance with the Animals for Research Act, as amended;

(c) Any person licensed or exempted as an operator of an animal supply facility in accordance with the Animals For Research Act, as amended, or the employees of such facility, during the course of their duties;

(d) Any person who operates an elementary school, secondary school, college, university or provincial institution that contains a research facility exempted from registration under the Animals for Research Act, as amended;

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #12 October 29 2004

(e) Any dog owned, possessed or harboured by the London Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other governmental enforcement agency.

Hearing Does not Act as a Stay of Muzzling Requirement 9.7 A request for a hearing by an Owner does not act as a stay of the requirement to muzzle the dog.

I O . OFFENCES

10.1 Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act.

I I. Enforcement

11 .I This By-law maybe enforced by the Chief of Police, the City Clerk, ang PoundkeeDer.

12.1 Section 1 .I of By-law PH-4 as amended is hereby s for “mitigating factor”, and “Notice of Caution”.

12.2 Sections 3.19 and 3.20 of Bv-law PH-4 as ame

13.1 If any provision of this By-law is he provisions of this By-law shall not b

I Control Officer or

12. Repeal of by-laws

d

13. Severability

ompetent jurisdiction, the rema

14. Cominq into Force

First reading

Third reading - ’‘

by a

tions

!ining

Anne Marie DeCicco Mayor

Kevin Bain City Clerk

8

prohibit designated breeds by-law draf‘t #12 October 29 2004

Schedule “A“ Designating Notice requirements

The designating notices referred to in this by-law shall include:

(a) a statement that the Poundkeeper has reason to believe that the dog is a Prohibited, Restricted, Potentially Dangerous, or Dangerous Dog, as the case may be;

(b) the requirements that the Owner must comply with in accordance with this by-law and when such requirements take effect;

(c) where the Poundkeeper has designated the dog as a Prohibited Dog, a statement that the dog must be removed from the City or euthanized by a licensed veterinarian within ten ( I O ) working days of the giving of the notice; and

a statement that the Owner may request in writing, within ten ( I O ) ays of the giving of the Poundkeeperk notice, and is entitled to, a hearing by a commi ted by the Council of the Corporation of the City of London, and the committee may re Council affirm or rescind the Poundkeeper’s designation of the dog as Prohibited, angerous, or Potentially Dangerous, as the case may be, and the committee substitute its own designation or its own requirements of the Owner Dog pursuant to sections 6.4 and 6.9.

(d)

9

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft # I2 October 29 2004

10

Schedule “B” Conditions required to obtain, renew or continue to hold a Restricted Dog or Dangerous Dog

Licence or Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence.

The Owner of a Pit Bull [a Rottweiler dog, a Canario dog, or an Akita dog] shall be required to fulfill all of the following conditions in order to obtain, renew and continue to hold a Restricted Dog Licence; and the Owner of a dog designated as a Dangerous Dog shall be required to fulfill all of the following conditions in order to obtain, renew and continue to hold a Dangerous Dog Licence; and the Owner of a dog designated as a Potentially Dangerous Dog shall be required to fulfill all of the following conditions or such conditions as required by the Council in order to obtain, renew and continue to hold a Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence :

(a) commencing November 1, 2005, the Owner shall provide the Poundkeeper with proof satisfactory to the Poundkeeper that the dog has successfully completed a City-approved obedience training program conducted by a City-approved dog obedience trainer;

(b) the Owner shall hold a licence for the dog under Dog Control By-la

(c) the Owner shall not keep or harbour the dog in a multiple dwellj, . I -

(d) the Owner shall provide a veterinarian’s Certificate evi

(e) the Owner shall not have care or control of mort dog, or an Aki

(f) the Owner shall not own or hold a licence for mo Potentially Dangerous Dog;

ne (I) Pit Bull [a Ro

(9) the Owner shall not fail to prohibit tl

(h) the Owner shall not allow the dog to age;

has been spayed or neutered, where the dog is older than six months;

ta dog], Dangerous Dog or Pote

ividual less than 18 years of

is not contained on the Owner’s (i) the Owner shall ens1 premises;

(j) theowners

(k) the Owner s chipped by a licensed veterinarian;

II times when it is on the Owner’s premises;

s a valid policy of third party liability insurance issued amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 and shall nd each subsequent renewal of it. Such policy celled, permitted to lapse or changed to exclude

insurer notifies the Poundkeeper in writing at least thirty (30) days

clearly v a P$

(n) the Owner shi within two (2) wc

3‘

tl 7e main entrance to the Owner’s dwelling, a warning sign provided by shall be posted in such manner that it cannot be easily removed and is proaching the entrance;

le the Poundkeeper with the new address and telephone number of the Owner

(0) the Owner shall forthwith provide the Poundkeeper with the name, address and telephone number of any person to whom the Owner is selling or giving up possession of the dog; [unless prohibit selling]

(p) the Owner shall notify the Poundkeeper immediately if the dog is running at large or has bitten or attacked any person or domestic animal; and

(9) the Owner shall not have breached in the past any of the requirements and conditions of a licence for any other Restricted Dog, Dangerous Dog, or Potentially Dangerous Dog.

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #I2 October 29 2004

Schedule “C” Licence Fees

Restricted Dog Licence (Der vear)

Dangerous Dog Licence (Der vear)

Potentiallv Dangerous Dog Licence (Der vear)

1 1

prohibit designated breeds by-law draft #12 October 29 2004

“REGULATING BY-LAW” APPENDIX D-2

Bill No.

By-law No.

A By-law to Regulate and License Certain Breeds of Dogs and to Regulate and License Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs within the City of London

AND WHEREAS Section 104 of the Municipal Act, 2007 define animal kingdom, other than a human;

AND WHEREAS Section l O ( 1 ) of the Municipal Act, specific in its application and may differentiate in any appropriate;

AND WHEREAS Section lO(2) of the Act provide persons if the persons constitute different classes o

AND WHEREAS Section 9(3) of the Act provides th matter; and, as a part of that power, system of licences, permits, approvals requirement of obtaining, continuing to

mean any member of the

ulate or prohibit respecting the especting the matter, provide for a matter and impose conditions as a

fic provisions with respect to

it, approval or registration;

nuisance or coul

nicipality may regulate matters not specifically , safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the

ty and well-being of the inhabitants of the City of

Id on November 16, 2004, at which time submissions from ating to the regulation or prohibition of certain breeds of dogs,

dogs and dogs that have bitten;

pedient to pass this by-law;

ncil of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows: THEREFORE

Def i nit i o ns

1. For the purposes of this by-law, the following definitions shall apply:

[“Akita” means any dog which has the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly conforming to the standards of an Akita as established by the Canadian Kennel Club or the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club];

“Appeal Committee” means a Committee of Council as designated by the City for the purpose of this by-law for hearing appeals following the issuance of a dog designation notice.

“Animal Control Officer” shall mean a person appointed by the Poundkeeper, whose duties include the enforcement of this by-law, or the City Clerk or his or her designate, or the Chief of Police or his or her designate;

2

[“Canario” means any dog which has Gizlm the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly

conforming to the standards of a Canario as established by the Canadian Kennel Club or the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club];

“Certificate” means a certificate, confirmation or other report, in writing, of a veterinary surgeon evidencing that a particular dog therein identified has-been spayed or neutered (as the case may be);

\

“Chief of Police” means the Chief of Police of the City, and includes his or her duly authorized representatives;

“City” means The Corporation of the City of London;

“City Clerk” means the Clerk of the Corporation of the City of London;

“Contained” means to be confined: (i) within the Owner’s dwelling unit; or A

(ii) in an enclosed pen constructed with a secure top and s@ attached to the sides, or as otherwise approved I provide humane shelter for the dog while prev preventing the entry therein of unsupervised chi1

(iii) within a fenced yard, as approved by the Pou I 8 years of age.

y a person at least

“Council” means the Council of the ,Qtv:

“Dangerous Dog” means a dog: (i)

(ii) (iii) previously dj

that, in the absence of an person or has demonstrate that, in the absence of any miti

its (

r a secure bottom effectively ndkeeper. The pen shall

“Control” means that a dog is on a leash of a under the control of a person 18 years of a does not include sound or voice command;

in length, ined, and

“Dog” mean

“Dog Designa? Regulated, Danger!

lling or a

, bitten, or caused injury to a on to do so: ured a dom-estic animal; or

is kept or permitted to be kept by

r female, of any age;

by the Poundkeeper designating a dog as

s defined in thgCity’s Zoning by-law to mean a building containing

nit as defined in the City’s Zoning By-law to mean a single ary use which is located in a building, in which food itary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of the

s a private entrance directly from outside the building or from a common in which all occupants have access to all of the habitable areas and ich is occupied and used or capable of being occupied and used as a

Unit” rr series of

useKeeping esramsnmenr;

“Leash” means to a collar and of not more than one metre in length;

ain, rope or other material that is of sufficient strength to restrain a dog, affixed

“Licence” means a licence issued by the City Clerk or Poundkeeper under this by-law;

“Lodging House’’ means a Lodging House, Class 2 as defined in the City’s Zoning by-law to mean a residential building which is used to provide lodging units for hire or gain directly or indirectly to more than three persons, with or without meals, and shall not include a nursing home, hotel, motel, hostel, group home, bed and breakfast establishment, emergency care establishment, or a residence of an educational institution.

“Lodging Unit” means a Lodging Unit as defined in the City’s Zoning by-law to mean a room with sleeping facilities, either alone or in conjunction with another room or rooms.

regulating designated breeds by-law draft #10 October 29 2004

2.

2.

3.

3.1

3

“Mitigating Factor” means the follo dog:

person or domestic animal;

reacting to a person or domestic animal trespassing on the property of its Owner; or

ich excuse the aggressive behaviour of a

(i) the dog was, at the time of the aggressive behaviour, acting in defence to an attack from a

(ii) the dog was, at the time of the aggressive behaviour, acting in defence of its young or

(iii) the dog was, at the time of the aggressive behaviour, being teased, provoked or tormented.

“Multiple Dwelling” means a building containing three or more dwelling units but shall not include a street town house dwelling or semi-detached dwelling;

“Municipality” means the City;

“Muzzle” means a humane fastening or covering device placed over a dog’s mouth and of sufficient strength to prevent the dog from biting, and “muzzled” shall have a corre riding meaning;

“Owner” means any person who owns, keeps, possesses, harb for any length of time, whether or not that person has a licence

as a guardian of a dog a, and, where the owner is

a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor

“ Pit B u I I” means :

(ii) American Pit Bull Terrier; (iii) Staffordshire Bull Terrier; (iv) American Staffordshire Terrier; or (v) Any dog which has the appearance an

the standards for any of the above, American Kennel Club or the United K

“Potentially Dangerous Dog” me ;e of any mitigating factors, chases or apparent attitude of attack;

“Pound” means premises that are u: have been impounded Dursuant to a Poundkeeper;

w o f i i

“Pound keener3

“Premises” m

“Run At

(i) Pit Bull Terrier;

approaches any person or dimesti

I -

ttweiler dog, a Canario dog, or an

ce or disposal of dogs that which is operated by the

nt Inc. carrvincl on business as Animal Care and

Akita dog];

licence issued by the City to the owner of a Pit Bull [a Rottweiler

as the appearance and physical characteristics predominantly ‘ of a Rottweiler as established by-the Canadian Kennel Club or the

United Kennel Club];

log found in any place other than the premises of the owner and not under 6lt person by means of a leash of not more than one metre in length held by

By-law PH-4 APDlicable

The requirements of this by-law, including licensing requirements, are in addition to the requirements, including licensing requirements, of the City of London Dog Control By-law PH-4.

Reaulated Doas

Where the Poundkeeper identifies a dog as a Regulated Dog, the Poundkeeper shall designate the dog as a Regulated Dog by giving notice to the Owner of such dog. The notice shall include the items listed in Schedule “A“ to this by-law.

regulating designated breeds by-law draft #I 0 October 29 2004

4

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

The Owner of a Pit Bull dog, [Rottweiler dog, Canario Dog, or Akita Dog] situated in the City of London, whether or not it has been designated as a Regulated Dog by the Poundkeeper, shall be required to obtain annually a Regulated Dog Licence.

Where the Owner of a dog who is given notice from the Poundkeeper designating such dog as a Regulated Dog requests in writing to the City Clerk within ten (IO) working days of the giving of such notice, the Appeal Committee shall hold a hearing pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act within sixty (60) days of the City Clerk’s receipt of the request for a hearing.

The Appeal Committee, after holding a hearing, may recommend to Council to affirm or rescind the Regulated Dog designation.

Where a hearing has been requested, the decision of Council shall be the final decision.

Where no hearing is requested, the decision of the Poundkeeper shall

The fee for a Regulated Dog Licence is set out in Schedule “ C to

final decision.

The conditions required to obtain, renew or continue to hol Schedule “B “ to this by-law.

Where the Owner of a Pit Bull dog [Rottweiler Dog, Caj any of the conditions set out in Schedule “B“, all be revoked immediately by the Poundkeeper.

3.10 Where the Owner of a Pit Bull dog [Rottweil offences under this by-law, all Regulated immediately by the Poundkeeper.

3.1 1 Where a Regulated Dog Licence remove from the City the dog for euthanized by a licensed veterinaria

3.12 Where the Owner is required to have e

I Doa Licence are set out in

!d of any that Owner shal

r shall be required to permanently was issued, or have the dog the revocation of the licence.

ted Dog Licence has been and the City may recover m in the same manner as roll and

4.

o a person or has significantly injured a domestic

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

notice, within s

mitigating factors, the Poundkeeper shall designate such dog as a

he Owner of the Dangerous Dog designation. The notice shall ‘ to this by-law.

Iho is given a notice from the Poundkeeper designating such dog as a writing to the City Clerk within ten (IO) working days of the giving of such ee shall hold a hearing pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act - -

City Clerk’s receipt of the request for a hearing.

The Appeal Co ee, after holding a hearing, may recommend that Council affirm or rescind the Dangerous Dog Designation, or recommend substituting its own designation of the dog as a Potentially Dangerous Dog and may recommend substituting its own conditions of the Owner of a Potentially Dangerous Dog pursuant to sections 5.6 and 5.1 0.

Where a hearing has been requested, the decision of Council shall be the final decision.

Where no hearing is requested, the decision of the Poundkeeper shall be the final decision.

The Owner of a dog designated as a Dangerous Dog is required to obtain a Dangerous Dog Licence.

The fee for a Dangerous Dog Licence is set out in Schedule “ C to this by-law.

The conditions required to obtain, renew or continue to hold a Dangerous Dog Licence are set out in Schedule “B” to this by-law.

regulating designated breeds by-law draft #I 0 October 29 2004

5

4.10 Where there is a final decision, and the Owner of a dog designated as a Dangerous Dog fails to comply with any of the conditions set out in Schedule “B”, all Dangerous Dog Licences held by that Owner shall be revoked immediately by the Poundkeepeq.

4.1 I Where there is a final decision, and the Owner of a dog designated as a Dangerous Dog is convicted of any offences under this by-law, all Dangerous Dog Licences held by that Owner shall be revoked immediately by the Poundkeeper.

4.12 Where a Dangerous Dog Licence has been revoked, the Owner shall be required to permanently remove the dog for which the Dangerous Dog Licence was issued from the City, or have the dog euthanized by a licensed veterinarian within ten ( I 0) working days after the revocation of the licence.

4.13 Where the Owner is required to have euthanized a dog for which a Dangerous Dog Licence has been revoked, the costs of such euthanasia shall be at the Owner’s upense, and the City may recover such costs by action or by adding the costs to the tax roll a lecting them in the same manner as taxes.

5.1 Where a dog has chased or approached any person apparent attitude of attack, in the absence of any m such dog as a Potentially Dangerous Dog.

iestic animal factors, the Poun

5.2 The Poundkeeper shall give notice to the Ownc notice shall include the items listed in Schedule ‘‘A?

5.3 Where the Owner of a dog who is g&m a notice from’ Potentially Dangerous Dog request giving of such notice, the Appeal C Procedure Act within sixty (60) days

5.4 The Appeal Committee,Aff,r holding a Potentially , Dangerou conditions of the

5.5 Where a he

5.6 Where no hear

fast de:

Ltior

lion or iignate

I. The

dkeeper designating such dog as a within ten (IO) working days of the L pursuant to the Statutory Powers

uest for a hearing.

ouncil affirm or rescind the

5. Potentially Dangerous Doqs

:hat Council substitute its own

Council shall be the final decision.

undkeeper shall be the final decision.

angerous Dog is required to obtain a Potentially

dog Licence is set out in Schedule “C” to this by-law.

ew or continue to hold a Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence

ion, and the Owner of a dog designated as a Potentially Dangerous Dog 6f the conditions set out in Schedule “B”, all Potentially Dangerous Dog

Fwner shall be revoked immediately by the Poundkeeper, and the dogs shall

5.1 1 Where there is a final decision, and the Owner of a dog designated as a Potentially Dangerous Dog is convicted of any offences under this by-law, all Potentially Dangerous Dog Licences held by that Owner shall be revoked immediately by the Poundkeeper, and the dogs shall be deemed Dangerous Dogs.

5.12 Where the Owner of a dog designated as a Potentially Dangerous Dog has not contravened any of the provisions of this by-law for a period of two years from the date of designation, the Potentially Dangerous Dog designation shall expire. The expiration of the designation does not prevent the dog from being designated as Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous for a subsequent contravention of this by-law.

regulating designated breeds by-law draft #I 0 October 29 2004

6.

6.1

6.2

7.

7.1.

ElGI Prohibitions - Licences - General

No person shall fail to license their Regulated Dog, Dangerous Dog, or Potentially Dangerous Dog according to the provisions of this by-law.

No person shall own a Pit Bull dog [Rottweiler Dog, Canario Dog, or Akita Dog], a Dangerous Dog, or a Potentially Dangerous Dog-without a licence under this by-law.

Prohibitions - General - Pit Bull Don [Rottweiler Doa, Canario Don, or Akita Dogl, Dangerous Dog, Potentiallv Danqerous Dog

No Owner of a Pit Bull dog [Rottweiler Dog, Canario Dog,, or Akita Dog], a Dangerous Dog, or a Potentially Dangerous Dog where required, shall:

(a) fail to prohibit the dog from attacking any human or domestic ani

(b) fail to prohibit the dog from trespassing on any private prope

(c) fail to prohibit the dog from running at large;

(d) fail to contain the dog when on the Owner's prem

(d) fail to muzzle the dog when not contained on

(e) keep or harbour the dog in a multiple dwelli

(f) keep or harbour the dog if it has not been spay

(9) have care or control of more th Dog in a public place;

(h) allow the dog to be in the care or

'

re it is older than six months;

ous Dog, or Potentially Dangerous

dkeeper at the main entrance to the Owner's

r with the new address and telephone number of the Owner within

ediately if the dog is running at large or has bitten or attacked

8.

8.1.

8.2

(9) sell the dog.

General

Notices Any notices given by the Poundkeeper shall be given by hand delivery or prepaid registered mail. Where notice is given by prepaid registered mail, it shall be sent to the Owner's last known address on file with the City, and shall be deemed to have been received on the third working day after the date of mailing.

City not Liable The City, its employees, agents and servants and the Poundkeeper shall not be hable for damages or compensation for any dog humanely euthanired under the provisions of this by-law and no such damages or compensation shall be paid to any person.

6

regulating designated breeds by-law draft #I 0 October 29 2004

7

Licences - Expiry 8.3 Any licence issued under this by-law shall be valid from the date of its issue to December 3Is', and

shall expire thereafter.

Dog Tags 8.4 Upon issuing a licence for a dog under this by-law, the City shall supply the Owner with a dog tag

which shall bear the serial number and the year in which it was issued.

8.5 The Owner shall keep the dog tag securely fixed on the dog at all times until the licence is renewed, replaced, or revoked.

Exemptions 8.6 This by-law shall not apply to:

(a) An animal shelter operated by the Poundkeeper or a shelter la Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals OSPCA;

(b) Premises registered as a research facility in accordance w as amended;

(c) Any person licensed or exempted as an operator o with the Animals For Research Act, as amended, course of their duties;

(d) Any person who operates an elementary provincial institution that contains a res Animals for Research Act, as amended.

(e) Any dog owned, possessed or harbou Police, Royal Canadian Mounted Polic

operated by the Ontario

imals for Research Act,

ly facility in accordance ch facility, during the

on under the

requirement to muzzle the dog.

9. Offences

9.1 Every person who n offence and on conviction is liable to a fine as

e City Clerk, an Animal Control Officer or by a

ed is hereby amended by removing therefrom the definitions

-law PH-4 as amended are hereby repealed.

12.1 If any provisio By-law is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this By-law shall not be invalidated.

13. Coming into Force

13.1 This by-law shall come into force on January 1 ", 2005.

PASSED in Open Council ,2004

Anne Marie DeCicco Mayor

regulating designated breeds by-law draft # l o October 29 2004

8

Schedule “A“ Designating Notice requirements

9

The designating notices referred to in this by-law shall include:

(a) a statement that the Poundkeeper has reason to believe that the dog is a Regulated Dog, a Potentially Dangerous Dog, or a Dangerous Dog, as the case may be;

(b) the requirements that the Owner must comply with in accordance with this by-law and when such requirements take effect; and

(c) a statement that the Owner may request in writing, within ten ( I O ) working days of the giving of the Poundkeeper’s notice, and is entitled to, a hearing by a committee designated by the Council of the Corporation of the City of London, and the committee may recommend that Council affirm or rescind the Poundkeeper’s designation of the dog as a Regulated Do Dog, or Potentially Dangerous Dog, as the case may be, and the committee may rec Council substitute its own designation or its own requirements of the Owner of a Pote us Dog pursuant to sections 5.4 and 5.9.

regulating designated breeds by-law draft #IO october 29 2004

Schedule “B“ Conditions required to obtain, renew or continue to hold a Regulated Dog, Dangerous Dog, or

Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence.

10

The Owner of a Pit Bull [a Rottweiler dog, a Canario dog, or an Akita dog] shall be required to fulfill the following conditions in order to obtain, renew and continue to hold a Regulated Dog Licence; and the Owner of a dog designated as a Dangerous Dog shall be required to fulfill all of the following conditions in order to obtain, renew and continue to hold a Dangerous Dog Licence; and the Owner of a dog designated as a Potentially Dangerous Dog shall be required to fulfill the following conditions or such conditions as required by the Council in order to obtain, renew and continue to hold a Potentially Dangerous Dog Licence:

(a) commencing November 1, 2005, the Owner shall provide the Poundkeeper with proof satisfactory to the Poundkeeper that the dog has successfully completed a City-approved obedience training program conducted by a City-approved dog obedience trainer;

(c) the Owner shall not keep or harbour the dog in a multiple d

(d) the Owner shall provide a veterinarian’s Certificate ev neutered, where the dog is older than six months;

(e) the Owner shall not have care or control of mor dog, or an Akita dog], Dangerous Dog or Poter

(f) the Owner shall not own or hold a licence for dog, or an Akita dog], Dangerous Dog, or Potentia

(9) the Owner shall not fail to prohibit tt;

(h) the Owner shall not allow the dog t

(i) the Owner shall ens premises;

(j) the Owner st _ _

(k) the Owner sha

khanwed to exclude thirty (30) d

ig house;

iayed or

Canario

ull [a Rottweiler d 9;

(b) the Owner shall hold a licence for the dog under Dog Control By-la

ividual less than 18 years of

not contained on the Owner’s

I1 times when it is on the Owner’s premises;

chipped by a licensed veterinarian;

as a valid policy of third patty liability insurance tario in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00

subsequent renewal of it. elled, permitted to lapse or the Poundkeeper in writing

of the change, cancellation or expiry;

the main entrance to the,Owner’s dwelling, a warning sign provided by the Pc shall be posted in such manner that it cannot be easily removed and is

he Poundkeeper with the new address and telephone number of the Owner

pproaching the entrance;

within two (2) w$ g days of moving;

(0) the Owner shall forthwith provide the Poundkeeper with the name, address and telephone number of any person to whom the Owner is selling or giving up possession of the dog; [unless prohibit selling]

(p) the Owner shall notify the Poundkeeper immediately if the dog is running at large or has bitten or attacked any person or domestic animal; and

(9) the Owner shall not have breached in the past any of the requirements and conditions of a licence for any other Regulated Dog, Dangerous Dog, or Potentially Dangerous Dog. ‘

regulating designated breeds by-law draft #10 October 29 2004

Schedule “C” Licence Fees

Dangerous Dog Licence (per year)

Potentiallv Danaerous Doa Licence (per vearl

11

I

J