Toronto Board of Health Minutes

[Dukieboy]

(Report 1, Clause 1)
1.12 Preventing Vicious Dog Attacks in Toronto
The Board of Health considered the following:

(a) report (January 5, 2005) from the Medical Officer of Health, providing policy
recommendations and strategies to prevent vicious dog attacks in the City of
Toronto.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:

(1) the Medical Officer of Health report to the Board of Health, in
consultation with the City Solicitor, on amendments to the Municipal
Code Chapter 349 to strengthen prevention of dog attacks and on related
enhancements to prevention and enforcement programs, as soon as
possible after proposed provincial legislation amending the Dog Owners’
Liability Act is passed;

(2) the Medical Officer of Health report to the Board of Health Budget
Subcommittee within six months with a detailed strategy for increasing
revenue generation from Animal Services;

(3) the Attorney General be requested to include in the proposed amendments
to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act a requirement to microchip all restricted
pit bulls;

(4) the Attorney General be requested to ensure that any regulations regarding
the final disposition of pit bulls be applied equally to municipalities,
humane societies and contracted services;

(5) the Attorney General be requested to fund 100% of municipal
implementation costs related to proposed amendments to the Dog Owners’
Liability Act for a three year transitional period;

(6) this report be forwarded to the Attorney General with a request to consider
adopting those strategies with province wide implications; and

(7) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the
necessary action to give effect thereto;
(b) communication (January 14, 2005) from Mike Conner, Corporate Services
Director, Toronto Humane Society;
(c) submission “Saving Lives: The Humane Society of Canada’s Action Plan to
Prevent Dog Bites” forwarded by Vanessa McMain, Wildlife Programs
Coordinator, The Humane Society of Canada;
(d) communication (January 16, 2005) from Steve Barker, Ontario Director, Dog
Legislation Council of Canada;
(e) communication (January 16, 2005) from Casey A. Conklin, Co-Chair, Withrow
Park Dog Owners’ Association; and
(f) communication (January 17, 2005) from Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of
Canada and Environment Voters and Barry MacKay, Canadian Representative,
The Animal Protection Institute.
The following persons appeared before the Board of Health:
- Councillor Kyle Rae;
- Andrew Perkins, Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog Trainers;
- Brian Bates;
- Liz White, Animal Alliance of Canada;
- Sylvia Serley;
- Marcia Macaulay; and
- Glen Hamilton, North America Fly Ball Association.
On motion by Councillor Fletcher, the Board of Health adopted the staff
recommendations in the Recommendations Section of the report (January
5, 2005) from the Medical Officer of Health with the following
amendments:
(1) Recommendation (1) amended to read as follows:

“(1) the Medical Officer of Health report to the Board of Health,
in consultation with the City Solicitor, on amendments to
the Municipal Code Chapter 349 to strengthen prevention
of dog attacks on related enhancements to prevention and
enforcement programs, as soon as possible after proposed
provincial legislation amending the Dog Owners’ Liability
Act is passed;

(a) that the Board of Health approve, in principle, that
the City’s Animal By-law be amended to include a
provision that designates dangerous or potentially
dangerous dogs and that the by-law amendment
include restrictions on dangerous or potentially
dangerous dogs;

(b) that the Medical Officer of Health, in consultation
with the City Solicitor, report to the Board of Health
on the details required to designate dangerous or
potentially dangerous dogs including:

(i) amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter
349 required to designate dogs as potentially
dangerous or dangerous;

(ii) the establishment of criteria for designating
dogs as potentially dangerous or dangerous;
and the establishment of restrictions for dogs
designated as potentially dangerous or
dangerous including the following options:
muzzling, confinement in a pen, increased
licencing fees, microchipping,
spaying/sterilizing and owner liability
insurance;

(c) that the City Solicitor be requested to draft an
amendment to the Animal By-law that reflects the
policy developed by the Medical Officer of Health
in Recommendation 1(b) above;

(2) Recommendation (2) amended to read as follows:

“(2) the Medical Officer of Health report to the Board of Health
Budget Subcommittee within six months with a detailed
strategy for increasing revenue generation from Animal
Services;

(a) the Board of Health establish a short-term
committee to oversee the revenue generation
strategy, to be comprised of members of the Budget
Advisory Committee of the Board of Health, the
Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Board of Health, the
Chair of the Animal Services Advisory Committee
of the Board of Health and staff of the Toronto
Animal Services and Finance;

(b) development of a cost-recovery strategy for funding
enforcement of dangerous/potentially dangerous
dog by-laws beyond the transition phase, in part,
from the revenue obtained for licencing all dogs in
Toronto;

(c) the status of collection of outstanding fines related
to animal by-laws; the development of revenue-neutral
strategy for increasing collection of fines
issued by the City of Toronto; and the feasibility of
redirecting fine revenue for enforcement of animal
related by-laws into Toronto Animal Services
programs; and

(d) a review of the City of Calgary’s Animal and By-law
Services and their effective revenue generation
program in order to develop similar strategies that
may aide in offsetting costs for Toronto Animal
Services and create education programs;


(3) Recommendation (3) amended to read as follows:
“(3) the Attorney General be requested to include in the
proposed amendments to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act a
requirement to microchip all restricted dogs”;

(4) addition of new Recommendation (8) as follows:
(8) the Attorney General be requested to increase not only the
maximum fines but also the minimum fines;
(5) addition of new Recommendation (9) as follows:
(9) the Medical Officer of Health report on a model and costs
to sterilize all dogs prior to adoption from the City’s
Animal Centres;
(6) addition of new Recommendation (1) as follows:

(1) the Medical Officer of Health report on ways to enhance
educational programs for adults and children.
(The Honourable Michael Bryant; Minister of the Attorney General; c.
Interested Persons; Medical Officer of Health; Jane Speakman, Services – January 25, 2005

[Dukieboy]

This part is interesting:

(ii) the establishment of criteria for designating
dogs as potentially dangerous or dangerous;
and the establishment of restrictions for dogs
designated as potentially dangerous or
dangerous including the following options:
muzzling, confinement in a pen, increased
licencing fees, microchipping,
spaying/sterilizing and owner liability
insurance;

[babyrocky1]

Does this mean these reccomendations are adopted or are they being concidered by council? Do you know what the next steps will be?

[babyrocky1]

I called Olivia Chows office today and threatened to quit the party if she had anything to do with supporting that document, shes suposed to call me back tomorrow, the provincial NDP told me that those reccomendations from the board of health were not adopted by the government , for their own selfish reasons i suppose, but anyway they were not adopted into the bill . I was afraid that there was a predetermined point were regulations were added to the bill by the municipalities etc, after it is passed but this person assured me that that is not the case. Some comfort I guess.

[Schwinn]

Chow supported the decision to restrict the pitbull that was in the daycare. She's as self-serving as anyone. I wouldn't trust her half as far as I could throw her.

[babyrocky1]

I know she did and this is two days later and I havent heard from her, I know they did that big city budget thing, but still. It cant hurt to keep up the pressure, the city can still make this harder for us, so thats what I intend to do. Rosario Marchese is my mpp who ive always campaigned for and I will continue to do that since he did not support the bill, however, Olivia is a different story. Since shes married to the leader of the party if she supported those ammendments Ill quit. I have a new cause to keep me busy anyways! Maybe we should run our own candidate- Hey Two Dogs what about you, your now a man in search of a party. Create your own. If nothing else it would raise awareness if we run candidates. An eighteen year old lifeguard where I work ran for mayor once and got quite a few votes

[twodogsandacat]

I don't think so. I'm not a public speaker. As I have stated before I don't see the next party rushing out to change this but I do see them not defending it with the vigor that the Liberal's would. I see them calling it unworkable and a drain of public funds. Give them a better option and they will support it.

Let the courts throw it out and let the next party create real laws that address the real issues. They have all made comments that they should be held to in the next election and after their victory over the Liberals. One document could be used as the basis of the law: The coroner’s report regarding the death of Courtney Trempe. How many times do we have to type that name before somebody gets it.

Let your local MPP candidate know you are working for them and against the Liberals in 2007. Don't simply ask for the law to be thrown out that won't happen. Ask them for fair and workable legislation. My dogs have never been attacked by a pit but one was almost blinded by a Chocolate Lab. I want that lab issue addressed as well.

[babyrocky1]

you are right two dogs and a cat. As you know, I was there when Courtneys mother testified and I know that she would like a good law that adresses more of the coroners reccomendations. That will help ensure that that kind of a tragedy never happens again. I also heard her say she would like the law named for Courtney. I think as a group thats the least we should push for! Courtney's law. (its too bad about the Public Speaking thing though but I know the feeling. I called the city tv comment line and I was shaking like a leafand thats just a tape recording.