HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS-11-95Report ##: CS -11 -95 File By-L.avv
Subject: ANIMAL CONTROL/DOG SHOOTING INCIDENT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend
to Council the following:
1. THAT Report CS -11 -95 be received for information.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
1.1 At the March 27 meeting of council, Item 22 (Attachment #1) of the items for Direction was
received and referred to the Director of Community Services and the Clerk for review and
preparation of a report.
1.2 On February 20, 1995 Animal Control staff received a call from a resident stating that he
had an injured dog (that did not belong to him) on his property.
1.3 An Animal Control Officer went directly to the site to investigate. Upon arrival, the Officer
was greeted by the property owner and another unknown gentleman. Staff immediately
noticed a number of dead chickens and a dead rabbit along with blood stains on the snow.
1.4 The individual stated that he had shot a dog which was killing his chickens and the rabbit
and further believed to have wounded a second dog, which was still present on the property.
1.5 The Officer immediately went to the injured dog and made an inspection of the dog to try
and identify the extent of any injury to the animal. The Officer could not identify specific
injuries however, a spot of blood was noted on the side of the dogs nose. A general
observation of the dog indicated that the dog was possibly upset and scared but seemed quite
alert. The dog was then walked to the Animal Control vehicle and lifted inside. Upon
securing the dog, the Officer went to the dead dog and loaded it into a separate
compartment in the Animal Control vehicle.
./2
T111S B PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER
REPORT CS -11 -95 - 2, APRIL 3, 1995
1.6 The individual was advised of the procedures from that point and was advised that he would
be contacted and provided with the name of a Municipal Livestock Valuer for the purpose
of recovering any damages incurred.
1.7 Upon arrival at the Animal Control Shelter, staff again conducted an inspection of the dog
to try and determine if the dog had received injury requiring emergency veterinary care. The
Officer having no indication emergency services were required, secured the dog and
conducted an ownership check using the dog's licence to identify the owner.
1.8 Staff telephoned the dogs registered owner and did not receive an answer. Subsequently, a
message was left on the answering machine to please contact the Animal Control Shelter.
1.9 Shortly thereafter, contact with the dogs' owner was made and staff informed that one of the
dogs was shot and killed and the other dog may have been injured but that the officer wasn't
sure.
1.10 The owner arrived at the Animal Control Shelter shortly thereafter and the information
surrounding the incident was revealed. The owner was also informed that should a livestock
valuer be called into the process that in all likelihood the second dog would also have to be
euthenized.
1.11 Subsequently the owner's spouse arrived at the shelter to claim the dead dog.
1.12 The following morning staff was contacted by the resident stating that they were aware of
the process and didn't really want to have the other dog destroyed but did require
compensation for the livestock which was killed.
1.13 Subsequently, the dogs' owner contacted the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer who
then asked the Director of Community Services to make contact to assist.
2.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:
2.1 The Director of Community Services contacted the dog owner to offer whatever assistance
would be required. During that conversation, the owner requested that the name of the
person who shot her dog be provided to her. The Director responded noting that he wasn't
sure that he could give her that information but would check with the Clerk's office
regarding confidentiality policy and should her request be permissible, that the information
would be provided.
2.2 It was at that point that the Director again informed the owner that should a livestock valuer
be brought into the scenario (at the request of the person who shot the dog and suffered
livestock damages) that in all likelihood the other dog would probably have to be brought
../3
r
REPORT CS -11 -95 - 3, APRIL 3, 1995
in to be euthenized. She was further informed that the person who shot the dog simply
wanted to be reimbursed (estimated at $200.00) and would rather not have to call the
livestock valuer.
2.3 The owner stated that she wanted to ensure that she was able to keep the second dog, that
money wasn't the issue and that she would be willing to pay the damages. At that point, the
Director noted that the $200.00 figure was estimated and that a specific amount was pending
from the other party.
2.4 At the conclusion of the conversation, the Director ensured he would do what he could to
allow her to keep her dog and would call back the following day to provide further
information.
2.5 The following day the owner was again contacted by the Director informing her that the
estimate of $200.00 was in fact confirmed by the person who shot the dog and further that
the Municipality would facilitate any transaction agreed to.
2.6 During that same conversation, the Director of Community Services confirmed that he was
prohibited by legislation from divulging information related to the person's identity as
confirmed by the Clerk's Department who carries the enforcement responsibility of the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With that confirmation, the Director
suggested that the enumeration for damages be paid in cash, and that a receipt would be
issued from the Municipality.
2.7 The owner further suggested that documentation be received from the person receiving the
money identifying receipt of the money and ensuring that the person would not seek further
action.
2.8 At that point the Director of Community Services referred the matter to the Department's
Program Manager with instruction to facilitate the transaction, issue a receipt and also
receive a signed note indicating payment in full and that no further action would be taken.
2.9 On Thursday, February 23, 1995 the transaction was completed, a receipt was issued and a
statement of receipt and intent was also received by Department Staff.
3.0 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT:
3.1 Subsequent to the verbal confirmation received from the Clerk's Department, the Clerk has
been requested to provide written documentation to justify the Director of Community
Services position as it relates to the dog owners request to identify the person who shot her
./4
REPORT CS -11 -95 - 4 - APRIL 3, 1995
dog. That documentation has been provided and is submitted as Attachment #2 of report
CS- 11 -95.
Respectfully Submitted,
e P. aruana, Director
Department..pf Community Services
JPC:PB:sa
Attachments
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee,
William H. Stock-Well,
Chief Administrative Officer
''iG
COUNCIL DIRECTION D -22
March 20, 1995 ATTACHMENT NO. 1
TO REPORT NO. CS -11 -95
Box 527
Orono, Ontario
LOB 1M0 10 i i'I t95
Members of Council
Town of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Dear Council Members
I write to you as fair - minded individuals and representatives of the residents in the
communities of Clarington. I ask you �se of the responsibilities
the Gasser dog on February
that there is fairness to all sides in the
20, 1995.
Nowhere in the Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act, chapter L.24 is there any
suggestion that the shooter should not be identified, or that the circumstances of the shooting
should be secret. In order to put this matter to rest the dog owners need to know all the
details of what happened. By wanting to remain anonymous, the shooter is giving the
impression that he /she has something to hide. Why has the Town, so far, interpreted the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to deny the dog owners
information about their personal property, namely the dog? The Town has everything to gain
by putting all the cards on the table - if the shooter does keep poultry, if the dog was on the
shooter's property, if the dog did cause poultry damage. However, by refusing to provide a
clear explanation of the facts the Town appears to be protecting the shooter, and one
wonders, "Why would the Town want to do that ?"
This issue should be resolved without further delay. Neighbours in the Best Road area are
looking at each other with suspicion. In rural areas such as this, neighbours need to be able
to trust each other. It is a responsibility of elected municipal councillors to foster good
relations within the community and not encourage Town staff to drive stakes of division and
suspicion between neighbours.
There are so many pressing issues for Council to address, this is an easy one to solve. Let's
not waste any more time. The dog owners need to know what happened on the mornin of
February 20, 1995, the shooter must bear the consequences of his /her action and exT ! 11 ; (O�(
Town's role is to facilitate this process. Maybe then they �@{3e,
what nappened, and the T „
end to this.
Yours sin rely
T ;ie Reid
0 11
c. Gord. Mills, M.P.P.
TO REPORT NO CS-111 95
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINCT N
11M1 *y we =
To: J. CARUANA, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
From:
Date:
Subject:
PATTI L. BARRIE, A.M.C.T., CLERK
MARCH 29, 1995
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - DOG SHOOTING INCIDENT
I have spoken with a Policy Advisor with the Freedom of Information and Privacy
Branch of the Management Board Secretariat with respect to the request for the
disclosure of the name of the farmer who was responsible for the shooting of a
resident's dog. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, this information does not have to be released under two sections of the
legislation, namely:
1. Section 8. (1) (d) which reads as follows:
"8. (1) A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure could
reasonably be expected to,
(d) disclose the identity of a confidential source of information
in respect of a law enforcement matter, or disclose
information furnished only by the confidential source;"
2. Section 14. (3) which reads as follows:
14. (3) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to constitute an
unjustified invasion of personal privacy if the personal information,
(b) was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation
into a possible violation of law, except to the extent that
disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to
continue the investigation;"
J. CARUANA - 2 - March 29, 1995
In this case, the farmer was the complainant in the matter, thereby making him the
confidential source of information respecting a law enforcement matter and the
information was compiled as part of the investigation undertaken by the Animal
Control Officers.
Having said this, however, if the farmer consents to the disclosure, the applicant
could be advised of the identity.
I trust this information will assist you with the preparation of your report.
r -'
0
Patti L. Barrie, A.M.C.T.
Clerk
cc: Chief Administrative Officer
`} 1 3