"Paws" for Concern
|Authority||Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine|
After his dog was seized by Animal Control, Walter went to court to contest its Destruction Order. While the court ruled in Walter’s favour – ordering the Regional District to return his dog immediately – Walter found his dog was already sedated. A Regional District employee had administered an injection of pre-euthanasia medication in anticipation of the Destruction Order. Happily the dog survived and was reunited with Walter.
Walter asked that an investigation be conducted into the employee’s actions against his dog. A Regional District administrator agreed to investigate and provide Walter with the full report of his findings. After several months of waiting, Walter contacted us.
We investigated whether there had been an unreasonable delay. While Walter had initiated legal proceedings that prompted the Regional District to withhold the report, he had since withdrawn his Notice of Claim. In response to our investigation, the Regional District wrote an apology to Walter and detailed their findings. Additionally, the Regional District took further action to both improve its Dog Regulation Bylaw and develop stricter policy and procedures for animal shelter operations. Walter received an apology and the report he was promised, while Regional District residents benefited from improved administration of animal control.