 |
| Daniel Dylan |
There are any number of unhoused, unleashed, stray or lost dogs roaming about at any given time. Some are friendly; some are not. One is generally aware to not attempt to pet any of them, especially those that be might qimmiit (dogs who are part of a sled team). That said, many people also adopt some of these dogs and keep them as companions. With the help of a rescue organization, the dog to whom I provide care was adopted from Iqaluit. As with many communities in the north (including Thunder Bay, Ont., where I now live and work), adequate veterinary care remains an issue for most.
While that remains a pressing issue, last week, on June 10, 2025, despite significant opposition from many Iqalummiut (people who live in Iqaluit), the Iqaluit city council amended its animal control bylaw to permit a seized animal to be “euthanized” after only 24 hours.
More specifically, the amendments to the bylaw provide that every animal found running at large, whether properly licensed or not, may be euthanized after a 24-hour holding period, which may be extended to a maximum of 72 hours when animals are captured outside normal business hours, on holidays and on weekends. While the bylaw refers to animals in general, the real target is dogs.
The amendments further provide that if the animal has a licence tag, reasonable attempts to contact the owner within a reasonable time to retrieve the animal within the 24-hour period will be made. The amended bylaw also provides that “if the owner cannot be contacted or does not retrieve their animal within the 24-hour time frame after being contacted the animal may be transferred or euthanized.” More concerning, the amendment also permits any animal not wearing
jhamvirus: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
If an animal has previously been captured on more than two occasions, the city may charge the caregiver an impound and release fee of $350 plus additional daily sustenance and care fees or may refuse to return the animal to its caregiver/owner. The amendments also permit municipal enforcement officers or authorized persons to seize, capture, impound or destroy any animal at any time if it is found to be running at large, unlicensed, chasing, harassing, or having bitten or attempted to bite another animal or person.
The city’s justification for these amendments is that the loose dog problem is out of control. While I can easily empathize with the need to promote public safety, protect public health and find a solution to the problem, these measures appear cruel and misguided. Following the amendments, the RCMP in Iqaluit undertook an investigation into what are alleged to be threats directed at city councillors on social media.
I will only briefly here make — and not belabour — the point that dogs are sentient beings and are what moral philosopher Tom Regan referred to as “subjects-of-a-life.” This idea refers to human and non-human beings who have certain mental capacities and individual welfare concerns. Subjects-of-a-life have desires, perceptions and memory; emotions, preferences and interests; they experience pleasure and pain, and can initiate actions in pursuit of their desires and goals. As such, subjects-of-a-life have what he also referred to as “inherent value” — value beyond their usefulness or utility to others. In turn, inherent value forms the basis of his argument that non-human animals deserve moral consideration equal to that of humans or human-animals.
Philosopher Peter Singer made a similar argument. From Singer’s point of view, non-human animals deserve to be treated similarly to humans, not necessarily the same. Accepting these arguments as truth, and despite the likely reality that the Iqaluit city council does not share Tom Regan’s or Peter Singer’s views, it still seems irresponsible for it to have made such amendments. From a caregiving point of view, it is a frightening prospect that one’s dog —companion, friend, family member — may be destroyed in 24 hours or less by municipal officers when they are unlicensed or lost and scared in a city that is only about 10.48 square kilometres and has approximately 10,000 residents.
Despite Iqaluit’s small size, there are any number of reasons that a person might not be reachable within 24 hours or even know their dog, cat or other animal is missing. Before the bylaw amendments, the holding period in Iqaluit was seven days. In Ontario municipalities, it generally remains three days. The point here, however, is that the City of Iqaluit is destroying dogs simply for being dogs. Moreover, euthanasia is typically an act of compassion. What the city is purporting to do is to destroy — kill — dogs as an administrative convenience. They are not euthanizing them.
But put this ostensible moralizing aside, and let’s look at dogs the way the law does: as property, chattels more specifically. Even without acknowledging the thorny moral and ethical arguments regarding the problematic legal status of dogs and other non-human animals in Canada, in this case the City of Iqaluit has arrogated to itself the power to destroy property within 24 hours, with little oversight or ability to prevent it from doing so.
While in Canada there is no constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process as there is in the United States (and was deliberately excluded from the Charter), the common law doctrines of trespass, theft and conversion all protect private property interests. Some statutes protect against appropriation as well. The notion that a city might destroy one’s lost property within 24 hours seems not only unreasonable, but also absurd. So too is the notion that a dog or other companion animal might be killed at any time merely for being unlicensed. These common law doctrines offer little comfort, however, because any damages that may be ordered by a court are generally limited to the fair market value of the chattel — the dog. Perhaps some general damages might be awarded, but the jurisprudence in Canada is, generally speaking, not reflective of such a proposition.
Unfortunately, these amendments have the potential to make canine lives and human lives worse and may do little to successfully address the problem. From an ethical perspective, the amendments are cruel. Some dogs that end up in shelters or seized by the city are simply lost, not abandoned or unwanted. Killing them after only 24 hours gives their caregivers little to no chance to locate their companion animal, increases the risk of killing healthy, adoptable animals, and denies the dog survival and both the dog and the caregiver the opportunity for reunion.
From a temporal perspective, the amendments are unreasonable. In 24 hours, many caregivers usually do not have time to realize their dog may be missing or lost, contact the city, or navigate systems that are opaque, poorly publicized or not user-friendly. A three-day timeline is already tight — a one-day timeline might prove impossible, even in a city as small as Iqaluit.
From a governance perspective, these amendments have the potential to erode public trust in the city’s animal control system. If Iqalummiut believe that lost dogs or other animals may be quickly destroyed, they may be less likely to call animal services for stray dogs, and fear of destruction may discourage them from surrendering dogs or using municipal services altogether. Trust is essential for a regime that depends on public support and cooperation.
Finally, from a humane point of view, no adequate health checks, behaviour assessments, or outreach efforts to dog rescue organizations, the Iqaluit Humane Society, foster homes or potential adopters will likely be made under the bylaw (although the word “transfer” is used in the bylaw). The chance to rehome dogs who might otherwise live full, happy lives is largely eliminated. It is therefore my sincere hope that someone challenges the bylaw in court, or, before any dogs are needlessly killed, that the City of Iqaluit rethinks its cruel decision to only give dogs and other animals only 24 hours to live.
Daniel Dylan is an associate professor at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law, Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ont. He teaches animal law, contract law, evidence law, intellectual property law and Indigenous knowledge governance.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@LexisNexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.