Whereas Santics v. Vancouver City Animal Control Officer, 2019 BCC 294 sets out that there is no longer discretion of the Courts to provide conditional orders to rehabilitate dangerous dogs, and that Courts must decide whether a dangerous dog poses an unacceptable risk to the public and must be destroyed or released back to its owner; And whereas animal control officers can create individualized remedies, but cannot require seizure and rehoming of dangerous dogs: Therefore be it resolved the UBCM petition the Province of BC and relevant Provincial Ministries to amend legislation in the Community Charter with regards to dangerous dogs to allow for conditional orders by judges, which would provide the Courts alternative means of dealing with dangerous dogs if they are deemed to not be an unacceptable risk to the public, and to also allow animal control officers additional powers to seize and re-home dangerous dogs, and to determine destruction when a serious injury andor death has occurred.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs The Community Charter and the Local Government Act enable local governments to establish rules related to animal control, and the safety of persons and animals. Under this legislation, municipalities have the authority to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements regarding dogs and their owners, and to provide for seizure of animals in certain circumstances; as well, animal control officers have special powers in relation to dangerous dogs including seeking a destruction order from the provincial court in defined situations. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ministry is aware of a variety of concerns relating to how dogs are regulated in communities both from those who want more regulation and those seeking less, including specific issues around dangerous dogs and the related legislation. The Ministry is also aware of the 2019 court ruling Santics v. Vancouver City Animal Control Officer, 2019 BCC 294, that provides no discretion for the courts to provide conditional orders to rehabilitate dangerous dogs. In general, the Ministry can appreciate the concerns that underly interest in providing the courts with alternative means of dealing with dangerous dogs deemed not to pose an unacceptable risk to the public and potentially qualified for rehabilitation, as well as allowing animal control officers additional powers to seize and re-home dangerous dogs, and to determine destruction when a serious injury andor death has occurred. At the same time, there are significant complexities in developing further legislation in these areas e.g. impacts on human and animal safety and on property rights; challenges of predicting animal behaviour how to determine whether or not an animal poses an unacceptable risk; and practical considerations such as the availability of re-home options in all communities. The issue of dangerous dogs is a shared responsibility between the Ministry and the Ministry of Attorney General. Ministry staff will work with Ministry of Attorney General staff to monitor and explore these issues, with the aim of finding the best possible, long-term solutions.