Morris-Turnberry pet owners oppose 'vicious dog' label applied to their dog
BY SCOTT STEPHENSON
At Morris-Turnberry’s Feb. 4 meeting, council received a delegation formed by Brad Lyons and Hailee Burlack regarding their dog Tucker. The young couple came before council to plead their case for Tucker, who was officially declared to be a “vicious dog” by township staff in the spring of 2024.
Lyons and Burlack made the argument that their family dog has been unfairly maligned by a neighbour, and that the designation of “vicious” should be reversed, as they believe Tucker does not meet the requirements laid out in the municipality’s Animal Control Bylaw (ACB). Following the pair’s presentation, council made the decision to request a comprehensive staff report that they hope will get to the bottom of this thorny issue.
Lyons began by explaining to council that he and Burlack are relative newcomers to the neighbourhood, having moved into their current home a little over four years ago. “I’m not much of a public speaker,” he admitted. “But we feel it is time to further educate ourselves and exercise our right to speak on matters that are ongoing in our community.”
The trouble ostensibly began following a fight between their dog and another local animal.
“One of the evenings that we were outside with friends and family, we had an unfortunate incident that took place at our residence…. There was a neighbour walking by with their dog on the road allowance, and there was an altercation with her dog and our dog.”
Both Lyons and Burlack agree that a skirmish between the two dogs did occur, and that their dog had likely crossed over onto the municipal road allowance when the fight occurred. “Did an incident take place at our house? Absolutely. But we have been nothing but co-operative,” Burlack asserted to council. They also acknowledge that the other dog was injured in the fight.
Where the couple has taken umbrage is with the way things have been handled from the evening of the altercation onwards, including what they feel is an erroneous application of the “vicious dog” designation. Lyons cited the ACB, saying that “according to the bylaw, a dog is considered vicious if it has, without provocation, attacked, or bitten a person or another animal, or has communicated through its actions or intention a habit or a tendency to do so.” As Lyons tells it, the owners of both dogs were very much aware that the animals had a previous history of animosity. “Neither one gets along,” he said.
Burlack claims that it was, in fact, the other, older dog that had first behaved aggressively towards Tucker when he was a puppy. “Our dog has never had an issue with any of the dogs in the neighbourhood, or any of the other people who walk by,” she told council. “But, before the people had a fence finished, that dog circled me and Tucker, when he was four months old… their owner kicked our dog as well. Dogs, unfortunately, don’t forget those things.” Burlack was sure to point out to council that she never felt that the other dog posed an actual threat to either her or Tucker. “It doesn’t have teeth - their dog is 12 years old. But still, to this day….” The pair believe that what they see as the other dog’s history of aggression against Tucker should disqualify him from being named a “vicious dog”.
According to the ACB, once a dog has been declared “vicious,” it becomes the onus of the dog’s owner to pay additional annual fees, as well as implement a series of restrictions on the animal for the remainder of its life. These restrictions include confining the animal indoors, or in a locked enclosure, at all times, unless being walked by an adult. Children under the age of 18 are not permitted to walk a “vicious dog”. It may not run at large, and the owner is required to obtain and maintain a policy of public liability insurance in the amount of $500,000 for any damage or injury caused by said dog. Should the dog in question violate any of the rules laid out in the ACB, the animal’s owner will be fined.
Lyons also feels that there has been a breakdown in communication amongst various government departments. He alleges that the owner of the other dog has changed their account of what occurred several times, telling different versions of the same story to various staff members and officers of the law, which he believes makes it seem as though Tucker has been involved in more than the one incident of aggressive behaviour that occurred in the spring of 2024.
At the township council’s Nov. 19 meeting, Property Standards Officer Kirk Livingston explained to council that repeat offenders need to be subjected to repeat fines. “We have the right to charge them, under our Fees and Charges. And I think that’s also in our Animal Control Bylaw. If we went and charged that one landowner today, and their dog was running at large again tomorrow, and we got a call, we could do it again, as well, right? And we can keep doing that for occurring offenses.”
At the time, Councillor Jodi Snell agreed with Livingston, adding that the aggressive enforcement of fines was the best course of action. “As a municipality, what we can do is show that we’re serious about these things, and follow-up with our fines.”
At last week’s meeting, however, Snell took the opportunity to ask the couple directly how things had unfolded the night of the incident. According to Burlock, the OPP officer who responded to the accuser’s call offered to help resolve the issue quickly and effectively. “We explained what happened and she was like, ‘OK, I want to be a mediator - we’re going to go get them, and we’re going to deal with this, right now and then.” They say that the woman declined the officer’s attempt at mediation. “She continued to text us, and put it all over Facebook, went to the town vet 24 hours later, reported it to the vet. Since the dog needed surgery, they then decided to charge us,” she recalled.
Shortly thereafter, a bylaw enforcement officer came by to fine them, and returned later with a letter declaring Tucker to be “vicious”. Burlock told Snell that they had never been interviewed or had a formal statement taken, either by the OPP or by Morris-Turnberry staff. She believes this has allowed their neighbour free reign to change her story at will. “The complaints you guys have, to the police report, to her statement - they’re all different,” Burlock claimed.
At the Nov. 19 meeting, Councillor Sharen Zinn expressed surprise that the dog was just allowed to run at large in Belgrave. “We can’t do anything about it?” she asked. At the Feb. 4 meeting, Zinn asked Lyons directly if their dog is running at large. “He has a wireless shock collar,” Lyons explained. On the night of the incident, the dog was accidentally let out by a friend without the electric collar on. “If he’d had it on, this wouldn’t have happened,” he posited. He explained to council that Tucker’s “invisible fence” confines him to their yard, and that the complaints about the dog being “at large” generally have to do with him crossing slightly into the space at the edge of their property designated as part of the municipal road allowance. “The dog has been trained not to leave the property,” he added.
Lyons expressed frustration that the neighbour is, in his opinion, unwilling to work towards a common-sense solution. He has asked the woman several times if she would be willing to walk her dog on the other side of the street, or take a slightly different route. “I believe that, as a member of the community, that you have a right to walk wherever you want,” he assured council. But Lyons also feels this is a deliberate attempt on the part of his neighbour to provoke his dog and exacerbate the situation. “This has become a lengthy and stressful involvement with you guys as a municipality, and now it’s become legal action as well,” he explained. “I hate to put it this way, but I feel like this might be a fabricated complaint, seeing as there’s been variation in what we’ve heard, and what we’ve read…. From my understanding, there’s been multiple variations to what has been stated.”
He believes that the confusion stemming from variations in statements made to the OPP, municipality, and the courts have made one incident seem like many. “It’s unfortunate, because this just further progresses it into this very serious issue, which I don’t believe it needs to be,” Lyons told council. “In the matter of a complaint, there’s supposed to be an investigation in which they may interview parties involved, whether it be employees, or members of the public, which Hailey and I are a part of. Neither one of us have been interviewed - instead we were just straight-out fined. With it being an untruthful complaint, we feel like it’s unnecessary.”
Thus far, Tucker and his owners have been fined repeatedly for various infractions brought to the attention of bylaw enforcers by a string of called-in complaints. Both Lyons and Burlock claim these calls are, by and large, a series of nuisance complaints from a disgruntled neighbour abusing the system to settle a petty grudge.
In closing, Lyons asked council to reverse the “vicious dog” designation on Tucker. “He’s a well-behaved dog. He’s not aggressive, and he's not dangerous. He’s grown up in a well-socialized, loving home. We’ve taken him to training.” Lyons also pointed out that Tucker has been boarded at kennels in the past without incident. “Some of the council members here have even met him… he has had multiple visits from neighbouring dogs, and some of these neighbours have wrote letters on his behalf. He’s grown up around multiple young children - nephews and nieces of ours. We have a four-month-old daughter, and we’ve never had any concerns…. So I’m asking you to take all this into consideration in this case, and I would ask that you please change this.”