January 15, 1999
To:Board of Health
From:Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health
Subject:By-law Respecting Animals - Revisions
Purpose:
To provide supporting comments on the revisions to the By-law Respecting Animals, taking into account the concerns,
suggestions and recommendations arising from the deputations, written comments, submissions from the Animal Services
Advisory Subcommittee, the Board of Health and staff.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of Health receive this report for information (a companion report from the City Solicitor
provides the detail of the By-law Respecting Animals).
Background:
The Board of Health at its meeting on December 1, 1998, had before it a report (November 27, 1998) from the Medical
Officer of Health regarding the Revised By-law Respecting Animals and a report (October 29, 1998) from the City
Solicitor respecting the Revised Animal Control By-law. The Board also had before it a number of reports and
communications and heard deputations from a number of interested persons. The Board of Health took the following action
with respect to the matters before it that are related to this report:
(1)Referred all material before the Board of Health with the exception of those matters referred to in the following
Recommendation (2), to the Board of Health for its January 1999 meeting, and requested the Medical Officer of Health, in
consultation with the City Solicitor, to report thereon with a revised By-law taking into account the concerns and
suggestions of the deputants and people who had written into the Board, and any other recommended amendments deemed
appropriate;
(2)referred the recommendations of Community Councils with respect to the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed
Dogs in City Parks, the establishment of leash-free zones in the City and the regulation of dog walkers, to the Economic
Development Committee for consideration;
(3)requested the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Board of Health on:
(a)details on a public education campaign regarding spay/neuter clinics;
(b)a clarification of the provisions of the By-law with respect to attendant working dogs (eg: seeing-eye dogs);
(4)referred the following motions placed by Councillor Prue to the Medical Officer of Health for consideration:
(a)an appeal process which would consider exemptions, in certain situations, for animals included on Schedule A;
(b)that the exemption definition contained in the Birds order/family of Psittaciformes be revised to conform with the
federal legislation as set out in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) or the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Comments:
The development of the By-law Respecting Animals was done within the scope of Toronto Animal Service's mission
statement: "To promote and support a harmonious environment where humans and animals can coexist free from conditions
that adversely affect their health and safety."
The following outlines the rational of the revisions to the By-law Respecting Animals. Also incorporated is a response to
the request for clarification of the provisions in the By-law with respect to attendant working dogs (eg: seeing-eye dogs)
and response to the motions placed by Councillor Prue. The report outlining the details on a public education campaign
regarding spay/neuter clinics will be presented at a future Board of Health meeting. The list of comments is in order as
presented in the by-law prepared by the City Solicitor.
(1)PART I, INTERPRETATION
The definition of "animal" has been narrowed to exclude fish and aquatic invertebrates from reference in this by-law. This
means that the city will not regulate the keeping of fish and aquatic invertebrates, such as lobsters.
(2)PART II, PROHIBITED ANIMALS
In the previous draft of the by-law there was a section that allowed Foster Programs under the supervision of an affiliate or
branch of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to keep any animal on the prohibited list in a
fostered situation outside of the premises of an OSPCA affiliate or branch. This section was deleted as there is a significant
concern that the inclusion of this exemption would permit the keeping of animals that have been prohibited for reasons of
health and safety. Such risks could include exposure to rabies vector animals and other zoonotic diseases. The City would
also be limited in any action to remedy potential problems if this clause where to remain in the by-law.
(3)PART III, CARE OF ANIMALS
Section 7 (2), of the by-law has been amended to read: "Every person who has tethered an animal shall ensure, at all times,
that the animal has unrestricted movement within the range of the tether, and that the animal cannot suffer injury resulting
from such tethering."
It was recommended by the Animal Services Advisory Subcommittee that the word "supervised" be included in this
section. After further consideration staff determined that the term "supervised," would be difficult to enforce, therefore,
"supervised" was replaced with the phrase "at all times" as this covers a broader scope of control in preventing injury while
the animal is tethered.
(4)PART IV, DOGS
The Board of Health requested a clarification of the provisions of the By-law with respect to attendant working dogs (e.g.
seeing-eye dogs). The fee schedule for licencing dogs permits free registration of personal assistance dogs upon proof that
the dog is used for such purposes. The proof may be provided by way of certificate from the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind or Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, or any satisfactory equivalent proof.
In the previous draft by-law a provision was included that stated, "No person shall have more than three dogs under his or
her control at any time while off the premises of the owner or owners of the dog or dogs." This provision has been deleted
from the by-law. This issue has been referred to Economic Development Committee for consideration in conjunction with
the recommendations of Community Councils with respect to the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in City
Parks, the establishment of leash-free zones in the City and the regulation of dog walkers.
The reference in the previous draft by-law to the suggested fee guide of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association has
been removed as there may be situations where the City is restricted in recovering all costs incurred when providing
veterinary care necessary for the well-being of the dog. This reference has also been deleted from the corresponding section
of Part V, Cats.
(5)PART V, CATS
The section regarding the impoundment of cats has been reworded by replacing the term "seized" with "take into
possession." The wording was changed in response to concerns that the term seized had resulted in the misperception that
the city would go about seizing cats at will. This replacement wording will allow the city to fulfill service expectations.
(6)PART VIII, FEES
The current Animal Centres provide other services to animal owners such as adoption, euthanasia, and cremation. The fees
for these services are set out in the referenced Schedule F of the by-law. The amounts were established by taking into
account the fee schedules in the former municipalities and current costs to deliver the service.
(7)SCHEDULE A: PROHIBITED ANIMALS
The list of Prohibited Animals has been significantly reduced to mainly cover animals which may be considered a health
and/or safety risk to the community. To a lesser degree the list also includes those animals whose keeping in an urban
setting may lead to significant nuisance problems, such as noise and/or odour for neighbouring residents.
MAMMALS - Four groups of mammals (including whales, seals, manatees and elephants) and references regarding
mammals taken from the wild have been removed as there is existing legislation to deal with many of the concerns
regarding these animals. The weight limit regarding Rodentia has been increased to ensure inclusion of all commonly kept
rodents of self-sustaining captive populations, such as chinchillas.
The prohibited list contains a variety of farm animals due to health and safety concerns as well as nuisance problems. All
pigs (including Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs) are prohibited in the by-law, which is consistent with the restrictions that
existed in all of the former municipalities in Toronto. Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs can range in size from 35 lbs to over 200
lbs. An exemption based upon weight within a single species and animal breed would be difficult to enforce and does not
deal with the other issues, such as potential nuisance problems, and therefore is not recommended.
BIRDS - Twenty-two groups of birds and references regarding birds taken from the wild have been removed as there is
existing legislation to deal with many of the concerns regarding these animals. The order/family of Psittaciformes was one
of the twenty-two groups that was deleted. The remaining three groups are considered a health and safety concern and/or
present a significant nuisance.
REPTILES - Twelve references to reptile groups and references regarding reptiles taken from the wild have been removed
as there is existing legislation to deal with many of the concerns regarding these animals. These groups have been replaced
by the prohibition of all snakes which reach an adult length larger than three metres and all lizards which reach an adult
length larger than two metres. Further health and safety concerns are addressed by the prohibition of venomous and
poisonous animals.
AMPHIBIANS - All references have been deleted as any health and safety concerns are addressed by prohibiting
venomous and poisonous animals. All references regarding amphibians taken from the wild have been removed as there is
existing legislation to deal with many of the concerns regarding these animals.
OTHER - The only reference remaining under "Other" prohibits the keeping of poisonous and venomous animals.
Schedule A does not include an exemption provision on an appeal process as the Municipal Act does not provide for a
public appeal process for prohibited animals as it does for the dog muzzle section. Even if the process was provided it
would be very difficult to establish criteria by which to grant exemptions given the variety of species specific needs to be
considered and extra resources that would be required to provide for such appeals.
A grandfather clause has not been included because the animals now remaining on the prohibited list are there for reasons
of health and safety and/or present a nuisance.
Conclusions:
This report provides supporting comments on the revisions to the By-law Respecting Animals, taking into account the
concerns, suggestions and recommendations arising from the deputations, written comments, submissions from the Animal
Services Advisory Subcommittee, the Board of Health and staff.
Contact Name:
Eletta Purdy
Manager, Toronto Animal Services
Tel:394-8109
Dr. Sheela V. Basrur
Medical Officer of Health
