Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLD-030-05 Report 1/3 CfgrPD REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: COUNCIL Date: September 12, 2005 Report #: CLD-030-05 File#: By-law #: Subject: ORDER TO RESTRAIN - HENDRICKS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following: 1. THAT Report CLD-030-05 be received; 2. THAT the Order to Restrain served on Vincent Hendricks be upheld; and 3. THAT Vincent Hendricks and Joey MacKinnon be advised of Council's decision. ~~~6-JL Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer PLB* CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506 REPORT NO: CLD-030-05 PAGE 2 of 3 BACKGROUND The Animal Services Division was advised of an incident of a dog attack which occurred at approximately midnight on June 8, 2005. Joey MacKinnon reports that he was visiting at a home on Concession Road 3, Newcastle when two dogs began fighting (one dog that resides at this address, the other that was being looked after by the owners of the property). An individual tried to separate the dogs and others attempted to help. The visiting dog, an Australian Shepherd Mix named Happy, bit Mr. MacKinnon. He suffered bite wounds on his right knuckles and baby finger, scrapes on his shoulder blade, shoulder pain due to the shaking and the bone below the ring finger knuckle was broken. Initially, the doctor thought the shoulder was dislocated. Upon investigation, the Durham Regional Health Unit issued a Notice of Violation for failure to provide proof of current immunization and ordered the animal to be confined at the home until June 20, 2005. Mr. Hendricks was served with an Order to Restrain on June 27,2005. He has filed an appeal of that order. His letter requesting the appeal and the reasons for it is attached hereto as Attachment NO.1. The Order to Restrain requires Mr. Hendricks to: 1. licence and register the dog with the Clarington Animal Shelter and have the dog permanently identified by microchip implantation; 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 its 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; and REPORT NO.: CLD-030-05 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. restrain the dog at all times, while the dog is off their 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. Mr. Hendricks and Mr. MacKinnon will be addressing Council on September 12, 2005 to address this issue. Interested party to be advised of Council's decision: Mr. O. Hendricks Mr. J. MacKinnon Attachment No. 1 to Report CLD-030-05 HENDCLIFTE FARM O. VINCENT HENDRICKS To: Mayor John Mutton and Members of Local Council c.c. Councillor Gord Robinson Councillor Charlie Trim July 3, 2005 RE: Appeal of Order to Restrain #13-2005 issued to Vincent Hendricks As a resident and property owner within Ward 4 of the municipality ofC1arington, on June 27111, 2005 I was hand delivered the above-mentioned order pertaining to my dog named Happy. I feel strongly that justice is not being carried out for Happy and am therefore appealing this order for the following reasons: · The Order to Restrain indicates that my dog "attacked a person on June SIl1, 2005." Describing Happy's actions in this way creates a false and erroneous logging of the facts surrounding the incident and completely miscbaracterizes Happy as a vicious dog exhibiting predatory aggression. · A thorough investigation of the situation involving the dog bite was attempted, but never achieved, by the Animal Services Division. For Council to understand why this Order to Restrain is unfair and undeserved, an accurate account of the incident should/must be chronicled. The following chronicle of events has been compiled from information provided by Mr. Hugh Allin and his daughter, Amy. The Incident: 1. Prior to going away on holiday, I arranged for Happy's former owner, Mr. Hugh Allin, to dog-sit Happy at his farm. Mr. Allin ensured that Happy was properly chained and not allowed to run free at any and all times during her stay. Happy, a 50-pound Australian Shepherd, was chained approximately 500 feet away from Mr. Allin's dog, a large King German Shepherd, a breed that ranges from 90- ISO pounds. The two dogs have been together before without any problems. 2. According to Mr. Allin's daughter, who spoke with us on our return to Newcastle June BII1, 2005, she held a party during the evening and morning hours of June 7111 and SII1. Somewhere in the very early hours of the morning of June SII1, the Allin's German Shepherd pulled her restraining peg out of the ground and in an act of aggression, ran over to where Happy was chained and attacked her. 3. Happy, still on her chain and under attack, was being beaten. Mr. Allin's daughter informed us that she went over to attempt to break up the fight and more than once instructed those present not to intervene. 4. Though it was dark and he had been told not to do so, the young man in question ran over and tried to physically separate the two animals. He unwisely intervened in the middle of a full-fledged dog fight, in which Happy, the smaller dog, remained chained though under attack and in a defensive and survival mode, against a dog bigger than herself. In the fray the young man was bitten. To return to my opening statement, the order gives an erroneous and frankly, false impression of the incident. The Animal Control Officer, herself, told me that no witness returned her messages and requests for information. [She explained to me that she is only able to request information but cannot demand that it be provided to her.] Therefore, the information that forms the basis of her report comes solely from the young man and his mother, who was not witness to the incident. . I ask, then, how accUrate can this report be when it was compiled primarily on heresay evidence? We are not, in any way, disputing the fact that the young man was bitten. However, to say that my dog "attacked a person on June 8, 2005" is not in keeping with our understanding of what took place, as I hope you will now understand from this appeal. This was simply a case of a good dog caught in a bad situation. To punish Happy in this way would be a miscarriage of justice and may I suggest, not the intent of the law in uestion. I am therefore requesting that the order issued against my dog, "Hap , e revoked.