WESTLOCK — A dog-owner’s refusal to give up their pet after it killed several other animals has led to changes in the Town of Westlock’s dog control bylaw to better deal with future court challenges.
Councillors passed all three readings of Town of Westlock Dog Control Bylaw at the Oct. 23 regular council meeting, where they unanimously voted 5-0 to pass the amended bylaw. Coun. Curtis Snell and Coun. Randy Wold were absent.
The town’s dog control bylaw was challenged in court earlier this year in a Westlock Court of Justice and as a result, two important sections were being reconsidered for legality purposes. Two sections, which pertain to the power of bylaw enforcement officers and inspecting and remedying contraventions, were re-examined.
“This is an amendment to our existing dog control bylaw and it’s as the result of a trial that happened in Westlock court,” said CAO Simone Wiley. “That trial resulted in two important sections being considered during that trial, so administration is bringing forward these minor amendments to the dog control bylaw so that should the bylaw have to go to court again for enforcement, we would be better protected in those ways.”
Wiley pointed out, pertaining to section seven, that a “person was charged with obstruction for not surrendering their dog that killed and injured other animals,” she said, adding the person required an officer to get a warrant to seize the dog and was subsequently charged with obstruction for failing to surrender it.
“After consideration of the charge in a court of justice, the justice made the determination that it was not an obstruction for the person to require the officer to get a warrant because it is a constitutional protection of a dwelling house that requires a warrant,” she explained.
As a result, the town was looking to add “an offence for a person not surrendering their dog upon request of a bylaw officer” to the existing bylaw.
“Our peace officer had no recourse to require that person to surrender their dog and have no recourse to give them a fine or anything for not doing so,” said Wiley.
There was also a change to Section 10 brought forward, which originally stated it does not allow the town to seek costs for prosecution.
“Currently Section 10 only allows for cost recovery if an enforcement order is issued,” said Wiley. “Usually in cases like this it’s needing to be done quickly and you don’t have time to issue an order … in this kind of a circumstance, you would never issue an order because the dog’s dangerous and you’re going to seize it.”
Administration recommended adding Section 10.5 which would allow the town to seek costs with prosecution without an enforcement order being issued. Wiley noted the wording of Section 10 was prepared by a bylaw prosecutor.
