LETTERS – Comparing a dog and an old car as threats to public safety

Dear Chief (Ken) Uzeloc,
(Protective Services Director, Kamloops)

I’ve been doing some thinking since that dog mauled the 10 year old boy.

Of course, his mother is upset and the photos of the boy’s face are kind of gruesome. (I wonder if he is going to be able to eat Christmas dinner properly; facial injuries and damage to his hand.)

Some time ago, you had an old car towed from the Tru Market lot on West Victoria Street. You stated at the time that the vehicle was a matter of public safety.

So, I’ve been trying to reconcile these two situations. First, an old car that was an inanimate object, sitting on a privately owned car lot, had become a matter of public safety. Second, a dog mauled a 10 year old boy in what the public believes was an unprovoked attack. The 10 year old boy received atrocious injuries to his face and what could be life altering injuries to his hand. The dog that mauled the 10 year old boy is deemed to be “aggressive” but it was given back to its owner. (The dog wasn’t even towed away, as it were.) Trust is given to its owner that it will be kept under strict rules for its living and therefore will no longer be a threat to the public. Was any proof of liability insurance provided by the owner of the dog?

Maybe you can see my confusion here, Chief Uzeloc. An inanimate object was deemed to be a threat to public safety but a dog that mauled a young boy was not.

I’ve copied this email to a few folks who may be interested in your answers as well.

Seasons Greetings.

JOHN NOAKES

Mr Noakes,

The two incidents that you listed are two completely different situations covered under different legislation and requirements and cannot be used together as direct comparisons.

The vehicle that was towed away from the TRU Market lot had been involved in two fires that required the fire department to respond to extinguish them and had vulnerable people trying to live in it and use fires to keep themselves warm. This was requested to be dealt with under the Fire Safety Act and the City of Kamloops Fire Bylaw and when an order was failed to be actioned, it was towed as a fire hazard. This did not require an order from a judge or for the city to apply to the courts to action.

The recent dog incident is of course very sad and of concern to the city. Immediately upon learning of the incident, the City seized the dog, conducted a thorough investigation, and engaged a third-party animal behaviour consultant to assess the dog. The consultant (that is considered an expert by the court) concluded that, given the unique circumstances of the case and with specific behavioural controls in place, the dog does not pose an ongoing risk to the public.

Based on this expert opinion and the City’s investigation, the dog has been designated as an Aggressive Dog under the Dog Responsibility and Control Bylaw and released to its owner subject to the stringent safeguards required under the Bylaw. The City recognizes that this outcome may be unsatisfactory for the victim and their family. However, the City chose not to pursue destruction proceedings in court under the Community Charter where the likelihood of success is low to have met the two part test for a “Dangerous Dog” decision based on the consultant assessment and past experience in the courts.

Regards
KEN