Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLD-47-02 , " . . REPORT II 2 CI!J!il!gfon REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: COUNCIL Date: NOVEMBER 25, 2002 Report #: CLD-47-02 File#: By-law #: Subject: ORDER TO RESTRAIN - JELINSKI RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following: 1. THAT Report CLD -47-02 be received; and 2. THAT the order to restrain served on Margaret Jelinski be upheld. Submitted by' LJG"--~__~ Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer PLB* CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506 REPORT NO: CLD-47-02 PAGE20f4 BACKGROUND On August 26, 2002, the Durham Regional Police attended 16 Strike Avenue and spoke with Stacey Vanderlinde, a 12-year-old victim of a dog bite. She stated that while walking home on Waverley Road at approximately 8:30 p.m., a dog from 2 Waverley Road approached her and bit her on the left buttock. The dog, a German Shepherd weighing approximately 60 to 70 pounds, was not leashed or in a fenced area at the time. Stacey attended Bowmanville Hospital for her injuries and was given a prescription after having her injury bandaged by medical staff. The officer observed the jeans that the victim was wearing and noted a hole in the left side of the buttock area and dried blood. A photo of the injury has been submitted with the dog bite report. The incident was reported to the Durham Region Health Department who placed the animal, Casey, under confinement at home for the period August 26, 2002 to September 5, 2002. The witness who was with Stacey at the time of the incident indicates that they were walking back from a friend's house when she heard barking. She thought it was a dog behind the fence but then the dog ran out of the backyard and bit Stacey, then ran back into the backyard. Mr. Jelinski, in the report submitted to Animal Services, states that the gate is always latched with two latches. The gate was found open late in the evening of August 26 and the dog was at home in the backyard. He indicates that the gate could only have been unlatched by a person intruding or as a prank, and the dog became disoriented. Upon investigation of the incident, the Animal Services Officer issued an "Order to Restrain" pursuant to By-law 99-90, as amended. The order requires Ms. Jelinski to: 1. licence and register the dog with the Clarington Animal Shelter and have the dog permanently identified by microchip implantation (the dog is currently licenced with the municipality) REPORT NO.: CLD-47-02 PAGE30F4 2. notify the animal shelter staff immediately upon relocating the dog or upon transferring ownership of the dog 3. restrain the dog at all times, while the dog is on his own property, by keeping it enclosed in a pen or other enclosure in such a manner as to prevent the dog from leaving the property and to prevent contact with people and other animals 4. restrain the dog at all times, while the dog is off his own property, with the use of a muzzle and a leash no longer than 6 feet and under the care and control of a person who is 16 years of age or older. Upon being provided with a copy of the report, Mr. and Mrs. Jelinski submitted a letter dated October 21, 2002, which has been included as Attachment No.1. In order to follow up with their concerns, the report was not submitted to Council on October 28 as originally intended. The reference to Casey being an annoyance by rummaging through neighbour's garbage and taking aggressive stance was taken from a statement provided by one of the Jelinski's neighbours. In discussions with the Deputy Clerk, this neighbour has retracted the statement and stated that she had the Jelinski dog confused with another dog in the neighbourhood. She commented "if this was the Jelinski dog, it is an isolated incident." Mr. and Mrs. Jelinski are concerned that their dog has been wrongly identified in this instance. The girl who was bitten in this instance has indicated that she is familiar with the dog at the other address and has stated that it is, in fact, Casey who bit her. A copy of the police report has been provided to the Jelinski's, as requested, and they have seen a copy of the photograph of the bite. To further follow up on the Jelinski's concerns, the Health Inspector was contacted by the Deputy Clerk. The Health Inspector has indicated that the victim stated the dog came from the backyard of 2 Waverley Road and returned to the same backyard after biting her. In her estimation, the dog fitting the description at that address is Casey and they have closed their file on the matter. REPORT NO.: CLD-47-02 PAGE40F4 Following a further telephone conversation with the Deputy Clerk, the Jelinski's forwarded a letter dated October 23, which is included as Attachment No, 2. Please note that this letter refers to the mother of the child attending at their house 1.5 hours following the incident. In fact, the Deputy Clerk advised the Jelinski's that the mother had told her that she attended at their house 30 to 45 minutes following the incident, not 1,5 hours. Mr. and Mrs. Jelinski have indicated their desire to address Council regarding this matter on November 25,2002. Ms. Vanderlinde has advised that she is unable to attend, but has submitted a letter which is included as Attachment NO.3. Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Ms. M, Jelinski 2 Waverley Road Bowmanville, Ontario L 1 C 1 K7 Ms. S, Vanderlinde 16 Strike Avenue Bowmanville, Ontario L 1 C 1 K3 10111/2~2 22:58 '30562361>53 l:.Ll:.l; 1I.(1l; WHl:.l:.L~ t-'Abl:. ~l Attachment No. 1 ptf?~ 1/3 (or ftJ?-~2:> ~6>(!J6 Eric and/or Margret Jelinski #2 Waverley Road, Bowmanvtlle, Ontario L 1C 1K7 Phone 905-623~53 Fax 905-623-6653 October 21,2002 Municipal Clerk, Patti Barrie Municipality of Clanngton 40 Temperance Street Bowmanvtlle, Ontario Dear Ms Barrie; Thank you for your letter/report No ClD-47--02 Order to Restrain We are very concerned about this event and wish to offer our sympathies to the family of Stacey Vanderlinde. However, we feel that you may have the wrong dog due to a mistaken identity or unintended circumstances. Please allow us to explain. It is reported that Casey is an annoyance to the neighborhood. Casey is only let out of our yard on a leash and under supervision. She is never allowed to IUn at large outside of our fenced back yard. Our gate is double latched, although not locked. We took into account that a double latch containing a hasp on the inside of the gate that was not readily visible from the outside would prevent a passerby from casually opening the gate. It is reported that the dog that bit Stacey weighed 60 to 70 pounds. Casey weighs 55 pounds as stated in Veterinarian reports that we can provide. It Is reported that our gate was open on the day of the attack. We cennot comment on this other than tha possibility of a prankster opening the gate. Not being used to the outside, Casey is very shy about leaving the back yard on her own and needs to be coaxed out. We are very much aware of possible intrigue that our back yard may pose to some in that we have noticed on various occasions that people (kids) have come to the gate attempting to enter the yard. It appears that some have thought that with one of two vehicles gone, is assumed that nobody is at home when In fact my wife has heard kids run away from the gate when she turns on the light to investigate. We have since installed a motion detector activated 500 Watt lamp to deter pranksterS., We have 1<)/21/2002 22: 58 9055235553 ELECTRIC WHEELS PAGE 02 ~CI~ ;l/3 noticed that the latches on our gate have been moved by some person, since we now as of this event, lock the gate and fasten the latch in such a way that a prankster can move the I8tch to a new p08ition unbeknown to himlher. It Is reported that Casey is an annoyance by rummaging through neighbor's garbage, and taking an aggressive stance. We beg to differ because Casey is not let out on her own. At this point, we wish to point out to you that there is a shepherd dog, similar ooloured to Casey, but & bit larger just around the comer from us at the address of 141 King Street West. This house Is accessible through 8 hidden Ianeway off the end of the dead- ended King Street or Old Hwy 2. This house is visible only from about half way up the hill on Roenick Drive. I walked about the neighborhood this evening inquiring about the dog from 141 and a neighbor reported to me that this dog gets out from time to time and Is an annoyance. This house #1.1 is in close proximity to the busy peclestrlan walkway leading from Hwy 2 up the hill towards Wavertey Road. Please also note that we did report this dog some time ago to your Canine Unit. Your Canine Unit reported thet the dog from 141 was not caught at the time. Based on discussion with a neighbor, this dog is still residing at 141 and geta out from time to time. We also wish to comment on the activities of Durham Regional Police. It was an officer, Hooey sp?, who delivered the Order to Restrain last week. When I questioned him on the whereabouts of any police reports on the matter invoMng Casey, he reported to me that he had no knowledge of any previous police reports and he reported to me that there was "nothing on file" at the Durham Regional Police Office. It is interesting to note that your letter/report CL().4I7-02 mentions that the police were Involved at the time of the bite and that a photo was taken. We duly request a copy of the police report inclUding B copy of the photograph. We also wish to point out that the Public Health Inspector, when she phoned, she said that: 'Casey had been seen running at large". The next day, the same Public Health Inspector said that: "Casey was seen running out of the yard, biting the gin and then running back into her yard." We are very much concerned about consistency of the statements from both the Public Health Inspector end the Pollee olIicer. We are very concerned about the number on inconsistencies in this case, Including the fact that there Is another dog similar to Casey that has not been the subject of any scrutiny. · 10,'7,1/2002' 22: 58 '3055235553 ELECTRIC WHEELS PAGE 03 . ~c<p 3/3 We recommend that the Town of Clarington take this other dog into account on the basis that In order to ensure that the follow-up, including medical attention is made to at leest err on the safe side. We regret any inconvenience to the town and to the Vanderllndes', however we are interested in co-operating fully so Bll to resolve the ITI8tter accurately and appropriately. Yours truly, J:: r t:L L: Eric Jelinski /~ , --;Jj~ /~J/('- Margret Jelinski 10/Q3/2002 21:59 9056236653 ELECTRIC WHEELS PAGE 01 /ap /~ Attachment No. 2 Eric and/or Margret Jelinski #2 Wavertey Road, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1K7 Phone 90~2~53 Fax 905-623-6653 October 23, 2002 Munlclpal Clerk, Patti Barrie Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperanoe Street Bowmanvllle, Ontario Dear Ms Barrie; Re: CLD-47-02 Order to Restrain; I wish to confinn a number of items that were discussed today between Margret Jelinski and Deputy CIefX, Marie Knight Stanley. The key points and counterpoints are: That the mother of the child came to our house at #2 Wavertey Rd approximately 1.5 hours after the incident and heard a dog barking in our back yard. The police report states that the incident occurred between 20:20 (8:20 pm) and 20:30 hours (8:30 pm). This puts that motl1er's visit between 9:50 pm and 10:00 pm. Some follow-up points are In order. a) Did the mother actually see Casey bark? I believe that the intended statement is: "It was reported that a dog was heard barking and thought to be Casey", I believe that the key word is "heard". Therefore the report that Casey was the dog that barked is not conclusive. b) Margret Jelinski was home at #2 Wavertey by 9:45 pm easily after leaving wofi( downtown Bowmanville at 9:30 pm. At no time, while Margret was at home from 9:45 pm onward, did Casey do any barking. At no time was Margret aware that the mother had come for a visit. c) There are other dogs in the neighborhood that bark occasionally and for example. one of our neighbors has a dog thet is put out in the back yard around 10:00 pm. This dog barks with a deep bark when it Is ready to go back inside. There are other dogs randomly barking at night belonging to owners who live behind our back yard. A more Important counter point is Casey's behavior on that particular night With all of the traffic in front of our house and perhaps numerous curious people coming quite close to the open gate to the back yard, and perhaps even stepping Inside the back ' yard to check on Casey; begs the question: Did Casey chase and bite anybody else? 10f23/20U2 21:59 9055235553 ELECTRIC WHi::i::L~ t-'AIOI:. ~~ , , ~ ~.<p- :J. /;). I'm sure this would have been reported. Therefore, there was no biting by Casey. I flndlt very unusual that it i$ reported that Casey ran out of our yard to randomly bite somebody and then did not touch any subsequent passerby's. In my earlier statement on the days immediately after the incident, I gave the investigators the benefit of the doubt on the basis that we were not at home that evening, and I had suggested that somebody may have riled Casey Into an aggressive mood. I am now considering a different scenario. The gate may stlllllkely have been left open by some curious person, prankster or peddler attempting to get inside our property. My view of the open gate at this point In time Is that the open gate is completely unrelat8d to any argument that Casey was doing the biting. On the contrary, it is more likely that Casey stayed as required In the back yard during the entire event. The open gate is however being used as the argument that Casey had the access to run off and bite somebody and therefore, "Casey is guilty". In reality, Casey's behavior is characteristically more aligned with staying in the yard even though the gate may be open. The hypothesis that it was Casey that ran out of our yard In order to bite somebody and then retum to the yard never to bit another passerby even though the opportunity was there for the remaining night is ever diffICUlt to believe. New information contradictB what is alleged to have occurred. This new Information points very strongly at another dog In the neighborhood that has been reported as loose on numerous occasions. It may be speculative, but not impossible that this other dog may have run In and out of our yard in search of food that Is readily available in Casey's dish. I trust that the investigation and decision regarding the order to restrain will take this into, account. '" " " You... truly, 7~~LA Erie Jelinski frl~ /~51-" Margret Jelinski Cc: Ms Carol Pandy, Public Health Inspector . ATTACHMENT NO. 3 November 14, 2002 Dear Patti Barrie, Re: Order to Restain In regards to the meeting being held on November 24, 2002, I will not be able to attend because of previous commitments, With regards to the incident involving my daughter and the Jelinski's dog "Casey", I do agree that they should question original statements regarding their dog, There are a few inconsistancies, For instance, the statement say the dog was 60lbs, We have no idea how to look at a dog and know its weight. They say 55 Ibs, that is pretty close to 60, Also the timing in which I was at their house was very shortly after my daughter was bitten by their dog, If you need prove you maybe able to get a hold ofthe 911 call I made after we were at 2 waverley,The time was about 8:45 not 1.5 hours after the incident. When I went to the house the dog was in the yard, gate open, barking loudly and threatening. My daugter yelled from the back seat of the car for me not to get out. My husband left the car running and the lights on the dog in hopes he would not advance. The dog in the yard was the dog that bite my daughter, It was a germ an shepard dog and did not come out of the yard while I was there, We quickly left the house, called 911 and headed for the hospital. That was all before 9:00pm. The owners of the dog indicate that she gets disoriented when out of the yard and with my daughter walking alone the street maybe the dog felt threatened. I understand that the dog is 12 years old so is this not a possibility? We have not doubt in our mind that the dog that bite Stacey is Casey. The other dog in question is larger, darker and we are familar with this dog. This happened in Aug and it is now November. The fact is that my daughter was bitten by a dog and we now wish to but this behind us. We can't do that because we are being asked about this over and over. If this can be prevented(thedog bitting again) then it should be. The decision is now in the hand of the town, Regards Linda Vanderlinde 905-623-4026 ~,.c.J ' \ VJ:::::D \C' CI...\"':::>O \ \ ke \,'\..R. wY\Q V\. n \ \<=:.-, ~ ~-\a IC::> C~\ec\ '( -e-1ur(\Qd T \'LfV~'7".::;J. c5v -tG