twodogsandacat
December 10th, 2005, 12:58 AM
Ottawa is already complaining about the extra costs associated with enforcing the DOLA. Wait to they start losing cases and the defendants seek costs. Nice: :fingerscr
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=11618785-041e-4bba-a9ce-2b85fd3e9544&k=44701
*************************************
Dog law puts costly bite on municipalities
One recent case cost city $50,000 in legal, kennel fees; more to come
Anna Piekarski, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, December 09, 2005
Ottawa officials are concerned that enforcing the province's anti-pit bull law will cost city taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"When they put in the legislation, we made it clear we didn't have the resources to deal with it," Susan Jones, the city's director of bylaw services, said yesterday. Enforcing the Dog Owners' Liability Act takes "an extensive amount of resources on our part. The legislation was passed and the municipalities are now dealing with it."
Indeed, she pointed out that a single case recently cost the city more than $50,000 after the court ordered that three pit bull-type dogs be destroyed for attacking people in two incidents last winter. The city had to shelter the dogs and pay legal fees over a seven-month period. Now, the city faces more costs in having to go to court following dog owner Jeff Hickey's refusal Wednesday to turn his pit bull-type dog, Dozzer, over to bylaw officers to be destroyed.
The dog bit a woman in late November and the city ordered that the animal be put down. Mr. Hickey was supposed to surrender his dog Wednesday, but refused. He is scheduled to appear in court Dec. 15 to fight the city's order. Under provincial legislation, certain breeds of pit bull-type dogs are no longer permitted in the province. As well, dogs that substantially resemble pit bulls, or have the same physical characteristics, can be subject to the legislation.
This latter provision may prompt dog owners to go to court if they feel their animals have been improperly included under the legislation. And that's where the potential cost to municipal taxpayers comes in.
"I'm hoping we don't end up in court (often), but we are at least going to have a few incidents for sure," said Ms. Jones.
Provincial officials couldn't comment on whether the province would offer short-term funding for municipalities to offset the costs of enforcing the legislation.
However, Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney general's office, said the province views cost issue as a short-term problem, because in the "long term, inevitably, there will be a decrease in the pit bull population."
In the meantime, he suggested that the city could cover any increase in costs by boosting fines and fees for licences.
Ms. Jones questioned the efficacy of that advice. She pointed out that in last winter's attacks, the dog owner was fined $2,100 on nine bylaw charges, which hardly covers the city's costs. In any case, "we aren't likely to see those fines and you don't recover your costs in a situation like that," said Mrs. Jones, noting that the dog owner is currently in jail.
As well, there's no surety that judges will impose the maximum $10,000 fine allowed under the legislation.
"Hopefully, the courts are going to start imposing those types of penalties," said Ms. Jones. "Pet owners that have dogs that bite need to pay attention that this is very serious."
Ms. Jones said higher fees could be implemented for dogs that have bitten previously.
Owners of these animals could face a $75 licence fee instead of the current $10 to $20 fee.
But even an increase in fees will not cover the costs of enforcing the law, she said, noting that about 270 dog bites are reported each year.
"Essentially, it comes out of the taxpayers' pocket at the end of the day."
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=11618785-041e-4bba-a9ce-2b85fd3e9544&k=44701
*************************************
Dog law puts costly bite on municipalities
One recent case cost city $50,000 in legal, kennel fees; more to come
Anna Piekarski, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, December 09, 2005
Ottawa officials are concerned that enforcing the province's anti-pit bull law will cost city taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"When they put in the legislation, we made it clear we didn't have the resources to deal with it," Susan Jones, the city's director of bylaw services, said yesterday. Enforcing the Dog Owners' Liability Act takes "an extensive amount of resources on our part. The legislation was passed and the municipalities are now dealing with it."
Indeed, she pointed out that a single case recently cost the city more than $50,000 after the court ordered that three pit bull-type dogs be destroyed for attacking people in two incidents last winter. The city had to shelter the dogs and pay legal fees over a seven-month period. Now, the city faces more costs in having to go to court following dog owner Jeff Hickey's refusal Wednesday to turn his pit bull-type dog, Dozzer, over to bylaw officers to be destroyed.
The dog bit a woman in late November and the city ordered that the animal be put down. Mr. Hickey was supposed to surrender his dog Wednesday, but refused. He is scheduled to appear in court Dec. 15 to fight the city's order. Under provincial legislation, certain breeds of pit bull-type dogs are no longer permitted in the province. As well, dogs that substantially resemble pit bulls, or have the same physical characteristics, can be subject to the legislation.
This latter provision may prompt dog owners to go to court if they feel their animals have been improperly included under the legislation. And that's where the potential cost to municipal taxpayers comes in.
"I'm hoping we don't end up in court (often), but we are at least going to have a few incidents for sure," said Ms. Jones.
Provincial officials couldn't comment on whether the province would offer short-term funding for municipalities to offset the costs of enforcing the legislation.
However, Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney general's office, said the province views cost issue as a short-term problem, because in the "long term, inevitably, there will be a decrease in the pit bull population."
In the meantime, he suggested that the city could cover any increase in costs by boosting fines and fees for licences.
Ms. Jones questioned the efficacy of that advice. She pointed out that in last winter's attacks, the dog owner was fined $2,100 on nine bylaw charges, which hardly covers the city's costs. In any case, "we aren't likely to see those fines and you don't recover your costs in a situation like that," said Mrs. Jones, noting that the dog owner is currently in jail.
As well, there's no surety that judges will impose the maximum $10,000 fine allowed under the legislation.
"Hopefully, the courts are going to start imposing those types of penalties," said Ms. Jones. "Pet owners that have dogs that bite need to pay attention that this is very serious."
Ms. Jones said higher fees could be implemented for dogs that have bitten previously.
Owners of these animals could face a $75 licence fee instead of the current $10 to $20 fee.
But even an increase in fees will not cover the costs of enforcing the law, she said, noting that about 270 dog bites are reported each year.
"Essentially, it comes out of the taxpayers' pocket at the end of the day."