Chief enforcement officer to propose change after charges thrown out

Charges that were thrown out against a Jasper man for leaving his dog in a vehicle in the winter have prompted questions about the wording of Jasper’s Domestic Animal Bylaw.

In Jasper Provincial Court on Feb. 12, Judge D.C. Norheim ruled there was no evidence to prove that Edwin Richard had deliberately tried to harm his dog by leaving him in a van on Dec. 16.

Section 7.12 of Jasper’s Domestic Animal Bylaw states, “Any person who shall deliberately or wilfully and with malicious intent, injure, hurt or otherwise harm any domestic animal shall be guilty of an offence.”

Because of the bylaw’s wording, a person can only be charged if criminal intent is proven, said chief bylaw officer Doug Rodwell in an interview last week. “The crux of the situation is instead of an ‘or’, the bylaw has ‘and’, so it’s an onerous section to prove,” he said.

The part the bylaw misses is animal mistreatment through neglect. “This section covers the guy that ties his dog to the kitchen table with no food or water for weeks,” Rodwell said.

Based on the result of the trial, Rodwell drew up a change to the bylaw, which he will propose to council. He said he’s unable to comment specifically on the change until it goes to council, which should happen within the next few weeks. “I think it’s a fair amendment and covers what we need to cover,” he said.

“It’s like anything else, when you find something’s not working, you re-work it. I think it’s good practice to have these things questioned. The judge ruled it law and ruled it appropriately.”

Until then, he instructed bylaw officers to follow the provincial Animal Protection Act.

“So if we were to come into a situation now, we would charge them under the provincial act which is a mandatory court appearance and up to a $10,000 fine,” Rodwell said. The fine for deliberately harming a domestic animal under the Jasper bylaw is $250.

Richard was accused of locking his pet dog in his van out front of his home in December of last year. Bylaw officer Kevin Myles was alerted to the matter by Richard’s neighbours, who believed the dog was distressed.

After being unable to contact the owner, Myles impounded the dog until the owner was located. While the judge ruled there was no malicious intent, he also noted that everybody acted in their correct duties, as Myles had believed the dog was distressed.

Richard, representing himself, said the dog is his best friend, and that he did it for her best interest as she liked to be in the fresh air of the van.

Rodwell said the bylaw officers were not necessarily unhappy with the outcome. “You win some you lose some,” he said. “It’s not about winning, it’s about the ultimate goal. You learn from a lot of things in life.”

-with files from Kaitlyn Coholan