City councilor goes to court over bylaw.

[Hassel99]

http://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/186 ... ne-problem


Shocking that Castanet did not mention the person in the bylaw dispute was a elected City Councilor. Her job is to set policy such as bylaws...

[Ingevan22]

Shocking indeed - no dog is too cute to license!

Dog Control had already offered to drop that 3rd ticket if Councillor Nahal paid the first 2 (no license and at large), and yet still the Councillor pressed to go to court, despite her lawyer's advice. And the outcome was, she wound up paying the 2 tickets.

Licensing fees help fund dog control services. Let's hope the rest of Vernon City Council understands how dog control is funded and why dog control is necessary.

[Bsuds]

Sounds like she thinks the rules don't apply to her and that's just BS!

[mexi cali]

I get the no license thing but I agree with her that the process is unbalanced. Anyone can claim anything, founded or not. They don't follow due process, they simply issue tickets based on the say so of a disgruntled person who may be disgruntled for reasons other than what we are led to believe is the problem.

If the process were fair, why then are there so many issues with it?

[Chyren]

...its almost like there's more to this story then is fully reported.

That's sarcasm by the way.

Clearly there's more going on here. There's ALWAYS an investigation before people are charged.

[Fancy]

It's easy enough to verify the dog has no licence hence the fine. That shouldn't have gone to court at all.

[Daspoot]

It doesn't sound like she has issue with the bylaws, but in the interpretation and execution, which is fair enough as sometimes enforcement can be questionable. But I agree with a previous poster, there just isn't enough info to really form an informed opinion.

It kinda sounds like either she has a busy-body neighbour who likes phoning in complaints about her dog, or she lets her dog be a nuisance to others, or maybe a mixture of both.

[gordon_as]

Too bad I didn't save a copy of the foul mouthed rant she posted on facebook several months ago regarding her fight with dog control. It was not becoming of a public official at all. My wife read it and concluded the woman should be fired.

[TheBoss]

While i don't agree with the woman. The person who runs dog control Pat ellis is an evil woman. Our dog ran away from our house years ago when they had fireworks going on. We didn't get a chance to put the new dog tag on him. We tried to reason with her to get our dog back and she wouldn't listen she wanted us to pay fine after fine.. A week goes by and when i called her to ask about seeing our dog she told me they had put him down. She refused to tell us were they put the dog down so we could bury him. She refused to accept that we had a valid dog tag, she refused to work with us. As much as they say they're working for the welfare of the animals it's all about the money.

[GordonH]

Sounds like the typical politician, look for her at Provincial or Federal levels in the future.

[Triple 6]

Clearly there's more going on here. There's ALWAYS an investigation before people are charged.

Usually not with dog control. Lots of people are fined (I'm not talking about licences, that's a no brainer) Bylaw issues fines and that's that. Fight it or don't. But you will pay.

[bob vernon]

So disappointed in Nahal. We thought we were getting a bright new voice on city council. Instead we wind up with a Yuppie trendoid who thinks that she shouldn't have to get a license for her dog. That's just for the little people without status and connections. I hope she doesn't run again. But if she does, she sure won't get my vote.

[Fancy]

Sounds like she was fighting the process and she did end up having the allegation that her dog was aggressive dismissed. Has nothing to do with the little people as I'm sure there are just as many little people that haven't licensed their animals. There isn't 100% compliance.

[Ingevan22]

Bob Vernon hit the nail on the head!

Fancy, you will have to forgive Castanet's sloppy reporting - there was never an "aggressive dog" charge. The dog was never on trial for being aggressive. The complainant reported an incident wherein the Councillor's unlicensed dog was "harassing" his (1 or 2 lb lighter?) dog while at-large.

In her "foul-mouthed rant" on Facebook, Councillor Nahal slammed Dog Control as "idiots' and made disparaging remarks about the complainant, yet she also admitted that her dog was at-large and not licensed. So why fight these 2 tickets?

For that third ticket, there appears to be bad blood between the complainant and Councillor Nahal, that may have little to do with the reported dog incident.

I am sure no one enjoys getting a ticket from Dog Control. But if you do get a ticket, and you don't agree and wish to dispute it, don't post a rant on Facebook - follow the instructions on the back of the ticket. And may I suggest further, that if you call Dog Control, don't start by asking "Do you know who I am?".

[Fancy]

Appears her Facebook page is gone but I didn't look very hard. I'll take your word for it and I didn't understand to start with why she didn't look after the licence part right away.