Articles
<< back to all ArticlesBy-Law Newsletter: Effectively Dealing with Dangerous Dogs
Effectively Dealing with Dangerous Dogs
Dogs are loving members of many of our households, and many of us treat them not only as pets but (particularly hairy) family members. The special relationship we have with our dogs makes dog attacks, where one dog attacks either another dog, animal, or human, particularly upsetting.
Municipalities have the unfortunate position of having the responsibility to deal with the fallout of dog attacks. In particular, municipalities have the ability to bring an application under the Dangerous Dogs Act, RSA 2000, c D-3, seeking a court order requiring that a dog be humanely euthanized, or that the owner of the dog comply with certain directions as to how they keep and care for the dog. Municipalities also have the jurisdiction to pass animal control bylaws, which can grant a municipality the right to declare a dog “dangerous” and to issue an order to an owner requiring a dog to be humanely euthanized or kept in a certain way to minimize the chances of dog attacks happening in the future.
At first glance, the Dangerous Dogs Act and an animal control bylaw would appear to be redundant. They both allow for a municipality to require a dog that has attacked another animal or person to be euthanized, or to require the owner to keep it in a certain way, such as a requirement that the dog always wear a muzzle. However, the procedure for an application brought under the Dangerous Dogs Act is far different than that for an order to remedy issued under an animal control bylaw.
The Dangerous Dogs Act is a very short piece of legislation, and it contains only three sections.
Section 1 states:
“A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person and if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it.”
Section 2(1) states:
“A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control and if it appears to the justice that the dog is dangerous, the justice may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner in a proper way or to be destroyed.”
Municipalities can submit a court application specifically to the Court of Justice (formerly known as the Provincial Court of Alberta), for a court order under either or both of these sections. Previously, municipalities used to regularly apply for an order under the Dangerous Dogs Act to the Court of Kings Bench. However, in the decision of Calgary (City) v Bagaric, 2022 ABKB 635, the Court of Kings Bench found that the word “justice”, as used in the Dangerous Dogs Act, specifically pertains to Justices of the Court of Justice. As such, the Court of Kings Bench does not have jurisdiction to hear these applications. That is unfortunate, as the procedure for applying for a court order in the Court of Kings Bench is far more straightforward than the process for applying for a Dangerous Dogs Act order in the Court of Justice.
Given the brevity of the Dangerous Dogs Act, it is unsurprising that many municipalities are not clear on the process for seeking an order under that piece of legislation. There have been occasions where municipalities have contacted the RCMP to lay criminal charges under the Act, and indeed, occasions where the Provincial Crown has brought those charges. However, that is not the correct process. The Dangerous Dogs Actdoes not create a criminal offence. The Act also does not create an offence that is to be prosecuted pursuant to the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, RSA 2000, c P-34, similar to a bylaw offence. Instead, these applications are treated as civil applications but are, oddly enough, heard and adjudicated by either a Justice of the Peace, or a criminal Justice of the Court of Justice. The initial appearance for these court applications tends to be heard in criminal docket court, and if they are opposed, a hearing (or trial) date is set. That means that it can take months before one of these applications is heard and a decision rendered.
An application under the Dangerous Dogs Act can also be difficult to succeed in, depending on the evidence available. There are decisions of the Court of Justice where the municipality’s application failed due to relying on hearsay evidence from a bylaw officer about which specific dog was involved in the attack. For example, in Edmonton (City) v Andrews, 2023 ABPC 220, the Court found that the City did not prove a dog attack happened as it only submitted an affidavit from its animal control officer, which included as exhibits statements and photos from the victim of the attack. The Court stated that the City should have provided an affidavit from the victim, instead.
Comparatively, if a municipality has an Animal Control Bylaw which allows a municipality to declare a dog to be “dangerous”, and in that event, to require a dog to be euthanized, the procedure and remedies available to that municipality are far more flexible. If there is such an applicable bylaw, the peace officer can, at their discretion (depending on the wording of the bylaw), declare the dog to be dangerous and require the owner to euthanize it. If the owner fails or refuses to comply with that direction, the peace officer would issue an Order to Remedy Contraventions under section 545 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (the “MGA”), requiring the owner to euthanize the dog (or comply with certain directions as to its keeping) by a specific date. If the owner fails to comply with that order, the municipality can apply to the Court of King’s Bench under section 554 of the MGA, seeking a court order requiring the owner to comply with the Order to Remedy Contraventions, and any other appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Applications for a remedy under section 554 of the MGA are routine in the municipal enforcement context. It is possible to put together application materials and get an application date within a matter of weeks, as opposed to the months involved in an application under the Dangerous Dogs Act. The question before the Court in a section 554 application is also much more narrow. The only question is whether the respondent complied with the Order to Remedy Contraventions (e.g., did the owner euthanize the dog, or comply with the directions as to keeping the dog). There is no need to prove, through first-hand evidence, that the dog was, in fact, the specific dog that attacked another animal or person or that the dog attack was sufficiently grievous to count as being “dangerous”, within the common law meaning.
Given the problems with proceedings under the Dangerous Dogs Act, municipalities should ensure that they have an animal control bylaw in place that allows their peace officers to declare a dog dangerous, and then require the owner to either euthanize the dog or impose certain restrictions on its keeping. With an effective animal control bylaw, a municipality will (ideally) never have to rely on the problematic Dangerous Dogs Act.
Stay informed with By-Law Newsletter, an annual newsletter bringing you updates and legal insights on topics that Alberta municipalities are facing today. Watch for new articles over the coming months or sign up for our mailing list to receive them directly to your inbox.
This post is meant to provide information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. Although every effort has been made to provide current and accurate information, changes to the law may cause the information in this post to be outdated.
