Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

London passes revised pit bull bylaws

lezzpezz
November 8th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Pit bull bylaw passes, takes effect in February

London's controversial pit bull bylaw was given final approval by city council last night without debate. The bylaw takes effect in February and will cost the city an estimated $100,000 a year to enforce, along with a revamped Ontario dog-control law. The province imposed a pit bull ban after a series of brutal attacks by the squat, powerful dogs. Pit bulls born before Nov. 27 are exempt if sterilized, leashed and muzzled. The bylaw requires pit bull owners to pay licence fees of $50 and an application fee of $10. It allows the city to seek fines, mostly the $500 maximum, for violations. The city adopted a policy to pursue the maximum court sentence -- a $10,000 fine and six months in jail -- under the Dog Owners' Liability Act for owners of dogs that bite a person or domestic animal .

Georgiapeaches
November 8th, 2005, 11:52 AM
This city is so sneaky. I looked on council's agenda about a dozen times Sunday night and yesterday, because I recall that it was supposed to go infront of city council yesterday. It was not on the agenda.
:mad:

Copper'sMom
November 8th, 2005, 11:58 AM
What about the million dollar liability insurance? Is this included??

I hate politicians! They think they know what's best for us, but yet they never listen to us!

Schwinn
November 8th, 2005, 12:15 PM
Again, I go back to my original thought...

If I'm bit by a dog that isn't pitbull, I guess I don't matter, because these rules are for pitbulls only.

I can hardly wait for someone to get charged, then find out it's not a pitbull, and then all of a sudden nothing happens. Hopefully it'll be a council person that gets bit.

lezzpezz
November 8th, 2005, 12:26 PM
[QUOTE=Copper'sMom]What about the million dollar liability insurance? Is this included??

I think they scrapped it as not one insurance company was willing to cover pit bulls, so you can't very well expect folks to get unattainable insurance. Thank goodness they removed this from the proposed bylaws.

bluntman
November 8th, 2005, 01:00 PM
The city adopted a policy to pursue the maximum court sentence -- a $10,000 fine and six months in jail -- under the Dog Owners' Liability Act for owners of dogs that bite a person or domestic animal .
That does say dog, not pit bull, and they are nuts, if they think for 1 second, that owners of dogs that bite will face a 10,000 doller fine and six months in jail, The majortiy of bad guy's don't do that much jail time or face fines, Yet London City counsil thinks working mothers and fathers who own dog's that are misfortunate enough to have bitten someone, are going to jail? Never going to happen, just shows how out of touch with reality some counslers are. Do they have clue, as to how many dogs bites there are in a year, and how bogged down the courts will be from the people fighting the City over the maximum sentence, Instead of the minumum that the corts would normaly hand out for a first offence. I don't think they thought that one through, and it may turn around and bite them in the a$$.

PetFriendly
November 8th, 2005, 02:01 PM
A policy and a by-law aren't quite the same. Its easier to contest a policy in court than a legitimately passed by-law.

Also, Council can't go around passing by-laws without proper notice (i.e, being sneaky is not permitted and can cause the by-law to be void) as per the Municipal Act. Typically, in larger municipalities, a report is submitted to a committee, which reviews the material and proposed by-law. This is where any changes are made to the proposal and where delegations can be heard. Once the matter is carried, with or without changes at Committee it then goes to Council for rubber-stamping. Unless of course the matter is so controversial that Committee refers the entire matter to “Committee of the Whole” in which case Council hears the delegations and makes changes to the proposal. (I work for municipal government so I’m pretty sure this is accurate)
Call the City Clerk’s office and ask about it. If the by-law has indeed passed, ask them for the following information:
- By-law number, date passed at council, effective date
- Name of the committee that received and carried the report, the date of that meeting and where you can find the minutes for the meeting.
- You’ll also want to ask when and where they advertised the meeting.
If things were done kind of funny, the matter can be brought to the OMB to be contested.

Georgiapeaches
November 8th, 2005, 02:09 PM
oh it was well known about the proposed bylaw. Public input meetings, etc. and it was always available online on the etc's agenda.
They were sneaky by not putting it on the agenda available online for council's meeting yesterday.

Here is the link to the agenda last night. Notice how the list all the proposed bylaws to have 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings but the pb one is not mentioned.
I do notice that on the first page it has reports from all the committee's.
Can someone please verify this for me. The pitbull bylaw was initially with the Environment and Transportation committee, but would it not be listed to be read in the Bylaws section on the council's agenda???? Does it have to go through the reading process with council as a whole?
http://council.london.ca/Council%20Agendas/2005-11-07%20Agenda/1Council%20Agenda.pdf (http://http://council.london.ca/Council%20Agendas/2005-11-07%20Agenda/1Council%20Agenda.pdf)

twodogsandacat
November 8th, 2005, 03:06 PM
Again, I go back to my original thought...

If I'm bit by a dog that isn't pitbull, I guess I don't matter, because these rules are for pitbulls only.

I can hardly wait for someone to get charged, then find out it's not a pitbull, and then all of a sudden nothing happens. Hopefully it'll be a council person that gets bit.

If a dog that has been a problem before bites a person then BOTH the municipality and the Province should be named as co-defendants in any resulting lawsuit for IGNORING the issue. SOB will appeal but then again he's a SOB.

There is enough statistical information regarding dog-related deaths in Canada to prove that the Province was negligent when they changed the law. The highest percentage of deaths was by another type of dog – therefore maybe bites also?. As that information was available it can only be negligent to ignore it. The argument can be made that the province outlawed driving a red car while drunk but blue, green and silver was deemed not an issue.

Refusal to enforce the laws by municipalities should also be punishable.

lezzpezz
November 8th, 2005, 04:20 PM
oh it was well known about the proposed bylaw. Public input meetings, etc. and it was always available online on the etc's agenda.
They were sneaky by not putting it on the agenda available online for council's meeting yesterday.

Here is the link to the agenda last night. Notice how the list all the proposed bylaws to have 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings but the pb one is not mentioned.
I do notice that on the first page it has reports from all the committee's.
Can someone please verify this for me. The pitbull bylaw was initially with the Environment and Transportation committee, but would it not be listed to be read in the Bylaws section on the council's agenda???? Does it have to go through the reading process with council as a whole?
http://council.london.ca/Council%20Agendas/2005-11-07%20Agenda/1Council%20Agenda.pdf (http://http://council.london.ca/Council%20Agendas/2005-11-07%20Agenda/1Council%20Agenda.pdf)

Sent this to Beth....she can sort through all of this for ya! She always has all the answers.....

PetFriendly
November 8th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Here is the link to the agenda last night. Notice how the list all the proposed bylaws to have 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings but the pb one is not mentioned.
I do notice that on the first page it has reports from all the committee's.
Can someone please verify this for me. The pitbull bylaw was initially with the Environment and Transportation committee, but would it not be listed to be read in the Bylaws section on the council's agenda???? Does it have to go through the reading process with council as a whole?
http://council.london.ca/Council%20Agendas/2005-11-07%20Agenda/1Council%20Agenda.pdf (http://http://council.london.ca/Council%20Agendas/2005-11-07%20Agenda/1Council%20Agenda.pdf)

Then it might not be law yet.

Typically the report from Committee would have to be carried at Council, then at the next meeting (3rd reading) the by-law in the report would become law. In either case, if a Committee approved the report with the proposed by-law there is no oppertunity for public input at either Council meetings.

Conners
November 16th, 2005, 01:28 PM
I just ewceived a snail mail from Michael Bryant yestersay in concerns of Pit bull owners and their dogs safety while out in public. Page one went on with when the law was enforced, yada yada yada, and by page 2 1/2 he finally got to my question, but didn't really answer it. TYPICAL!
My question was if I was out walking my dog properly muzzled and leashed and someone assulted us and no way to contact police, how would I be able to defend myself and my dog? I also mentioned I was 80 pounds with major health probems.
His answer, "I regards to your concerns about harassment of pit bull owners, I state unequivocally that verbal abuse and/or physical assault on the pit bull owner and/or dogs are whollu unacceptable. Where there is potential criminl activity, individuals for their safety should contact the police immediately. The pit bull ban is designed to increase public safety. It is not intended to encourage harrassment of pit bull ownes and it is certainly no excuse for such behaviour.
In regard to your questions about self-defence, I cannot provide you with legal advice. Similarly, I cannot provide you with advice on how to respondto threts to your personal safety as such responses need to be considered on a case-to-case basis with regard to all the particulars circumstances. Where police are unavailable, individuals are able to defend themselves in keeping with provisions of the Criminal Code and the common law. Generally, self-dfence must be reasonable or proportionate an the law does not permit excessive or unreasonable force. I would caution you that the law related to self-defefence is complex and reiterate tat responses needed to be considered on a case-by-case basis with full regard for the law. (yeah, well tell that to the gangster that just shoved a knofe in your back and killed you dog , Bryant!) :mad:
Ok...this is important to know. Additionally, the legislation toughens the penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public, by doubling fines up to...yaha yada yada... Further, in relationship to offences, the legislation allows the courts to order that dog owners pay restitution to victims. I note that these increased fines go to the municipalities which, in addition to any licencing fees or fines a mulicipality may decide to impose under it's own powers, will help to offset addiditional enforcement cost, if any.

So yes you get restitution from dog attacks af all dogs and as far as myself feeling safe, he sure didn't put my mind to ease.