Committee backs tougher measures to deal with Sudbury’s vicious dogs

Article content

Already in 2024, the City of Greater Sudbury has responded to more than 1,300 dog-related complaints across the city.

Article content

During last week’s meeting of city council’s operations committee, members approved a number of resolutions that will bolster animal enforcement and make it more expensive to break the rules.

Article content

Melissa Laalo of bylaw and security said the number of calls has been increasing steadily since 2017, when the city fielded 2,116 calls for service related to animal enforcement. In 2023, the city addressed 4,169 calls — an average of 12 calls per day.

So far this year 1,375 complaints have been logged, also an average of 12 calls per day. Of that total, 101 calls were for vicious dog complaints; 38 concerned a threat or attack on an animal; and 52 pertained to an attack or threat to a person. The city has also issued four notices.

Article content

Article content

Since 2017 the city has had to address 1,612 calls regarding dangerous dogs.

While there has been a rise in calls in the last few years regarding dangerous off-leash dogs, Laalo said it appears from staff research the city is doing comparably well, when it comes to managing difficult canines.

“This report confirms our practices and the deterrents in place are consistent with other municipalities, but we did see a few areas to enhance,” she told committee members . “The recommendations include prohibiting vicious dogs from using dog parks and off-leash areas — currently our bylaw doesn’t address that.”

In addition to the standard dog licence all owners are required to purchase annually, the bylaw department also recommended dangerous dogs “be required to obtain a specific licence, to be worn at all times. This will assist with data management; identification in the event the dog is at large; and enforcement efforts.

Article content

“Further, we are recommending an amendment to the bylaw, which would require owners to supply annual photographs of the dog that can be used for identification purposes.”

The city is currently aware of a dozen dangerous dogs.

“There are 12 dogs currently designated as vicious in our community. It would take an estimated 60 hours of bylaw officer time to effectively provide proactive enforcement and compliance checks,” staff noted in their report. “Therefore, staff are recommending amendments to the animal care and control bylaw to require annual inspections for these animals. The cost of service to be recovered by user fees; vicious dog license fees; and inspection fees. It is feasible for bylaw services to accomplish this service level with existing staff resources.”

Article content

Staff also recommended a 10-per-cent increase to fines. Laalo said “we’re slightly low on some of our set fines,” when compared to other municipalities. For example, a dog-at-large currently costs pet owners in Greater Sudbury $365, while the Ontario average is $400. A dog bite also costs the owner $365, while the provincial average hovers at $600.

“To act as a deterrent, staff are recommending updating the set fines by making a request to the regional senior justice of Ontario,” staff wrote in a report presented last week to the operations committee. “This standard process can take a few months to accomplish, and it will be aligned with any amendments (to the bylaw), as recommended in the report.”

Laalo said staff also recommended an education campaign.

Article content

“A proactive communication strategy and public education campaign will support enforcement and compliance with the goal of reducing the occurrence of dog bites. There is a need to change public behaviour and increase awareness of leashing requirements,” staff wrote. “Most dog bites in our community occur when one or more dogs are off-leash and not under the control of a handler. Owners are often bit when trying to separate their dogs during a fight.”

It is uncommon, but bylaw officers can enter homes under the Dog Owners Liability Act, when they have a warrant from a justice of the peace. But if a dog is seized, it is held at the municipality’s expense and will likely experience emotional turmoil.

“Seized dogs have a significant impact to the Greater Sudbury Animal Shelter facilities,” staff wrote. “The provincial court process for a recent seizure took longer than one year to conclude. Where a dog is seized, it is required to be boarded at the expense of the municipality until there is a judicial decision. Housing these dogs in solitary pens for this length of time has a detrimental effect on the dog; consumes significant city resources; and poses risk to staff.”

As a result, Laalo said staff were recommending the city petition the province to amend the act, “to provide an expeditious process to hear DOLA proceedings, as well as an explicit mechanism for municipalities to recover costs incurred by the municipality.”

Committee members voted unanimously in favour of all changes recommended by staff, including the park prohibition; increased fines; dangerous dog licences; and the implementation of an education campaign.

mkkeown@postmedia.com

X: @marykkeown

Facebook: @mkkeown

Article content