by CONNIETABBERT
Editor
COBDEN — The court case of two Whitewater Region Township residents refusing to purchase dog tags is not yet settled.
Chief administrative officer Christine FitzSimons reported at yesterday’s council meeting that there was a court date on Monday, Sept. 29. However, it was remanded again and it’s expected a court date will be set on Nov. 3.
The case is between the township and residents John Felix Cull and Garry Burns.
“With the backlog in the courts, it’s most likely this won’t come to trial until the new year,” Ms. FitzSimons said.
During a break in the meeting, Donna Burns, who has been representing her husband and Mr. Cull, said the delay is caused by the township’s lawyer not providing full disclosure of its case to her.
“The client (the township) is not providing full disclosure to those people who are charged, which is a requirement,” she said.
Anybody who has been charged has full right to the information to all the documentation that they’re using against that person as evidence to charge them, she noted. Ms. Burns has requested the disclosure since she is representing the two men. She has sent the lawyers 12 emails and has received no response.
“The requests were ignored,” she said. “Finally, we just hired a lawyer. The first time the lawyer makes that request and they come back with, they provided us, as far as they’re concerned, with all the disclosure information.
“They did not respect the procedure, and this is a procedure,” Ms. Burns said. “If we would have had a lawyer from day one, they would have respected the lawyer and responded. But, because we were self-represented, this is the game they’re playing.
“Meanwhile, all these times that we’re going to court, they’re charging the township for their time in court,” she said. “This is coming out of our taxpayers’ dollars.”
The case has seen three court appearances and two pre-trials, Ms. Burns said.
“I don’t think their lawyers are doing them justice, because they’re playing the game,” she said. “They look at the municipality as big dollars.”
Ms. Burns believes the township lawyers are aware they could lose this case.
“They know for a fact that nobody in their right mind would be going this far in it if they didn’t have good evidence to back up what they’re saying,” she said. “They’re just dragging their feet on it.”
Ms. Burns believes the township will drop the charges.
Following the meeting, Whitewater’s bylaw enforcement officer Doug Schultz said it was the first time the defendants brought a lawyer to court. It was agreed that time would be given for the defendants’ lawyer to review the disclosure documents provided, which is the township bylaw.
Mr. Schultz said, “We don’t know what their case is yet. They’re saying that our bylaw is no good. Our lawyer’s saying our bylaw is 100 per cent good. (It’s up to them) to prove that the bylaw is wrong.”
When asked why it’s necessary to purchase a dog tag each year, Mr. Schultz said in order for the township to look after dogs, there’s a fee of about $265 a month to have the pound service. There’s also the cost for the bylaw officer to respond to a complaint.
“If we don’t have a charge, who pays for it – the rest of the taxpayers,” he said. “So, is that fair?”
While a dog owner may never use the service, it’s there when needed, he noted.
The dog tag fees come close to covering the animal control expenses, Mr. Schultz said. However, he believes this court case could cripple the animal control expenses budget for the next three years.
He said about 1,400 dog tags are purchased each year, which is about 85 per cent of the dog owners. Of that number, he said about 1,100 come in and pay for a dog tag without getting a letter from the township, he said.
Mr. Schultz said when it’s discovered a dog owner has not purchased a dog tag, a letter is sent to them advising they must purchase the tag. This year, two people each sent a letter to the township advising “we (the township) had no rights to be selling dog tags. So, we had to defend our bylaw.”
