QUARRY and CITY OF BAYSWATER
[2019] WASAT 60
•7 AUGUST 2019
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: DOG ACT 1976 (WA)
CITATION: QUARRY and CITY OF BAYSWATER [2019] WASAT 60
MEMBER: MS D QUINLAN, MEMBER
HEARD: 7 AUGUST 2019
DELIVERED : 7 AUGUST 2019
PUBLISHED : 9 AUGUST 2019
FILE NO/S: CC 708 of 2019
BETWEEN: MICHAEL QUARRY
Applicant
AND
CITY OF BAYSWATER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Dog Act - Dog Local Law - Keeping of dogs - Application for exemption to keep more than two dogs - 'Foster' dogs - Kennel establishment
Legislation:
Dog Act 1976 (WA), s 7, s 7(3), s 16, s 16(5), s 26, s 26(5), s 26(3), s 26(3)(c), s 27, s 27(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27, s 29(1), Pt 3, Div 3
Result:
Decision of respondent affirmed
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | In Person |
| Respondent | : | Mr T Houweling & Ms B Waugh |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | N/A |
| Respondent | : | Cornerstone Legal |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Black and City of Canning [2015] WASAT 143
Douglas and City of Wanneroo [2014] WASAT 4
Pinnock & Anor and Shire of Mundaring [2005] WASAT 13
Robins & Anor and Shire of Harvey [2005] WASAT 28
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
These proceedings arise in the Tribunal pursuant to an application made by Mr Michael Quarry (Mr Quarry or applicant) under s 26(5) of the Dog Act 1976 (WA) (the Dog Act) for a review of the decision of the City of Bayswater (City or respondent) on 11 April 2019 concerning Mr Quarry's application to keep up to six dogs at his residence.
Mr Quarry resides at Unit 3, 185 Peninsula Road, Maylands (the property). The property is zoned Medium and High Density Residential in the City's Town Planning Scheme No 24 (the Local Planning Scheme). The property is part of a strata title which contains 10 lots. The internal size of the property is 69m² and the external area available for dogs is 2.50m by 7.90m which is 17.775m²: see tabs 1, 7 and 13 of the respondent's bundle of documents.
Mr Quarry made an application to the City for an exemption to keep more than the two dogs over the age three months as permitted under the Dog Act and The City of Bayswater: Dogs Local Law 2016 made under the Dog Act (Dog Local Law).
On 11 April 2019 the City conveyed its decision to Mr Quarry in a letter as follows:
Dear Mr Quarry
APPROVED APPLICATION TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO DOGS AT UNIT 3, 185 PENINSULA ROAD, MAYLANDS
On the 31 July 2018, the City of Bayswater Rangers and Security received your application to keep more than the prescribed number of allowed dogs at Unit 3, 185 Peninsula Road, Maylands.
Please be advised Council has considered your application and permission is granted for you to keep three dogs on your premises, subject to the specified conditions hereunder:
The animals listed in the approved application are as follows –
NAME BREED MICROCHIP REGISTRATION NO Sarkey Labrador Retriever Cross, Black, Female 941000015618860 Z2234 Brandy Labrador Retriever Cross, Tan, Male Pending Pending Ouzo Labrador Retriever Cross, Tan, Male Pending Pending As a condition of the application being approved, please ensure that your third dog as mentioned above is registered with the City of Bayswater by the 26 April 2019.
Should any of the dogs listed above die or no longer be kept on the property, no replacement dog is to be obtained under this specific permit. A new application will need to be submitted. The City of Bayswater Rangers and Security is to be notified in a timely manner, should either of the above occur.
This permission may be reviewed should any complaints be received by the City of Bayswater Rangers and Security which are considered to be reasonable. An example of this may be - nuisance barking.
The City of Bayswater Rangers and Security can be contacted on 9272 0972 during office hours.
Yours sincerely
SIMON HUBBARD
MANAGER RANGERS AND SECURITY
It was clarified in the hearing that Brandy and Ouzo are actually both microchipped and registered with the City of Bunbury and that these registrations would transfer in due course to the City for the second dog and, if Mr Quarry was granted an exemption for the additional dog, also transferred in due course in relation to the third dog.
Mr Quarry clarified in the review that he intends to permanently care for Sarkey, Brandy and Ouzo and his application for an exemption for up to six dogs is also for three additional 'foster' dogs that may temporarily be in his care while they are being re-homed. Understandably, Mr Quarry was unable to give a clear indication as to how long the 'foster' care arrangement would take place for any particular dog. Mr Quarry advised that a dog would normally be re-homed in around six months however he could not accurately predict this time frame as he has an obligation not to pass on an 'unknown quantity' and to give full disclosure to any new owner.
Both parties have provided evidence and submissions at the hearing of this review in the Tribunal on 7 August 2019. The Tribunal delivered oral reasons and issued orders at the conclusion of the hearing. These published reasons have been amended to correct typographical errors, grammar, add quotations, headings or sense.
Issue in dispute
The issue in dispute in these proceedings is, in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion on review under s 26(3) of the Dog Act, whether the applicant ought to be granted an exemption to the prescribed number of dogs allowed under the Dog Local Law, or an exemption with conditions, and be allowed to keep up to six dogs at the property.
Statutory framework
The State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) provides for the scope of the Tribunal's review jurisdiction in Pt 3 Div 3. Section 29(1) of the SAT Act provides the Tribunal with the corresponding jurisdiction, functions and discretions as those of the City under the Dog Act.
Pursuant to s 27 of the SAT Act, the purpose of the review by the Tribunal is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the review. Section 27 of the SAT Act also provides that the Tribunal:
(a)is not limited to the reasons given by the City or the grounds for review set out in the application;
(b)considers the decision afresh at the time of the review; and
(c)may take into account any additional or new information which was not provided at the time the original decision was made.
Relevantly to these proceedings, it is pertinent to reiterate that, if the Tribunal finds against the submissions made by Mr Quarry, the Tribunal is not bound in any way by the decision of the City. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the City and makes the decision afresh. This point was made clear to Mr Quarry at the directions hearing, in the submissions of the City and by the Tribunal at the commencement of the final hearing.
Section 7 of the Dog Act provides that if a dog is not registered under the Dog Act or the law of another State or Territory the owner, or someone who ordinarily keeps a dog, commits an offence. Section 7(3) provides for certain exemptions from the requirement to register dogs such as dogs under the age of three months, the RSPCA, the Dogs Refuge Home or another prescribed body.
Section 16 of the Dog Act provides that a dog may be registered by the local government of the district that the dog is ordinarily kept or deemed to be kept under the Dog Act. Section 16(5) of the Dog Act also provides that the registration of a dog under the Dog Act has effect throughout the State even if the dog moves to another local government district.
Section 26 of the Dog Act provides as follows:
(1)A local government may, by a local law under this Act —
(a)limit the number of dogs that have reached 3 months of age that can be kept in or at premises in the local government's district; or
(b)limit the number of dogs of a breed specified in the local law that can be kept in or at premises in the local government's district.
(2)A local law mentioned in subsection (1) —
(a)may limit the number of dogs that can be kept in or at premises to 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 only; and
(b)cannot prevent the keeping in or at premises of one or 2 dogs that have reached 3 months of age and any pup of either of those dogs under that age; and
(c)cannot apply to dogs kept at premises that are licensed under section 27 as an approved kennel establishment; and
(d)cannot apply to dangerous dogs (declared) or dangerous dogs (restricted breed).
(3)Where by a local law under this Act a local government has placed a limit on the keeping of dogs in any specified area but the local government is satisfied in relation to any particular premises that the provisions of this Act relating to approved kennel establishments need not be applied in the circumstances, the local government may grant an exemption in respect of those premises but any such exemption —
(a)may be made subject to conditions, including a condition that it applies only to the dogs specified in the exemption; and
(b)cannot authorise the keeping in or at those premises of —
(i)more than 6 dogs that have reached 3 months of age; or
(ii)a dog under that age unless it is a pup of a dog whose keeping is authorised by the exemption;
and
(c)may be revoked or varied at any time.
(4)A person must not keep in or at any premises, not being licensed under section 27 as an approved kennel establishment —
(a)in the case of dogs that have reached 3 months of age, other than dangerous dogs (declared) or dangerous dogs (restricted breed), more than the number of dogs than the limit imposed under —
(i)a local law mentioned in subsection (1); or
(ii)an exemption granted under subsection (3);
or
(b)more than —
(i)2 dangerous dogs (declared); or
(ii)2 dangerous dogs (restricted breed); or
(iii)one of each of those kinds of dangerous dogs,
that have reached 3 months of age; or
(c)any pup, of a dangerous dog (restricted breed), that is under 3 months of age.
Penalty:
(a)for an offence relating to a dangerous dog —
(i)a fine of $10 000, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $500;
(ii)for each separate and further offence committed by the person under the Interpretation Act 1984 section 71, a fine of $500;
(b)for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog —
(i)a fine of $5 000;
(ii)for each separate and further offence committed by the person under the Interpretation Act 1984 section 71, a fine of $100.
(5)Any person who is aggrieved —
(a)by the conditions imposed in relation to any exemption under subsection (3); or
(b)by the refusal of a local government to grant such an exemption, or by the revocation of an exemption,
may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision.
(6)An application under subsection (5) cannot be made later than the expiry of a period of 28 days after the day on which a notice of the decision is served on the person affected by that decision.
Section 27(1) of the Dog Act provides as follows:
Where, under section 26(1)(a) or (b), a limit is imposed on the number of dogs that can be kept in or at any premises situate in a local government's district area, and a person proposes to keep more than that number of dogs in or at premises in that area that are not exempt from the limitation, the person must apply for the premises in question to be licensed as an approved kennel establishment.
The Dog Local Law provides at Part 3 as follows:
3.1Dogs to be confined
(1)An owner and/or occupier of premises on which a dog is kept or a person liable for control of the dog must -
(a)cause a portion of the premises on which the dog is kept to be fenced in a manner capable of confining the dog;
(b)ensure the fence used to confine the dog and every gate or door in the fence is of a type, height and construction which having regard to the breed, age, size and physical condition of the dog is capable of preventing the dog at all times from passing over, under or through it;
(c)ensure that every gate or door in the fence is kept closed at all times when the dog is on the premises (unless the gate is temporarily opened in a manner that ensures that the dog remains confined) and is fitted with a proper latch or other means of fastening it;
(d)maintain the fence and all gates and doors in the fence in good order and condition; and
(e)where no part of the premises consists of open space, yard or garden or there is no open space or garden or yard of which the owner or occupier has exclusive use or occupation, ensure that other means exist on the premises (other than the tethering of the dog) for effectively confining the dog within the premises.
(2)Where an owner and/or occupier fails to comply with subclause (1), he or she commits an offence.
(3)Notwithstanding subclause (1) and (2), the confinement of dangerous dogs is dealt with in the Act and Regulations.
3.2Limitation on the number of dogs
(1)This clause does not apply to premises which have been -
(a)licensed under Part 4 as an approved kennel establishment; or
(b)granted an exemption under section 26(3) of the Act.
(2)The limit on the number of dogs which may be kept on any premises is, for the purpose of section 26(4) of the Act, 2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age.
(see tab 16 of the respondent's bundle of documents)
The Dog Local Law expressly provides at cl 3.2 that the prescribed limit of two dogs over the age of three months does not apply if a person has been granted an exemption under s 26(3) of the Dog Act.
The Tribunal has considered the exercise of its discretion regarding the exemption for the number of dogs permitted under s 26(3) of the Dog Act in a number of decisions as follows: see Pinnock & Anor and Shire of Mundaring [2005] WASAT 13 at [19]-[20]:
In this case, the dogs have been de-sexed and there is no risk of breeding occurring, which could be a source of nuisance. There is no evidence of any complaint concerning the behaviour of the dogs. The exemption requires the grant of an indulgence in respect of only one dog. The dogs are well accommodated and are effectively contained so there is little risk of wandering onto adjoining properties. The council's officer reported that the health and welfare of the dogs and their living conditions were acceptable. There is therefore nothing to point to any risk of behavioural problems causing any nuisance.
If a power exists to consider an exemption, which it does, it would be difficult to imagine a less controversial application. The decision of the council should be set aside and an order will issue to that effect, substituting for the decision, an order granting the application for exemption.
See Robins & Anor and Shire of Harvey [2005] WASAT 28 at [20]:
It is understandable that a local government would require a wellmotivated proposal prior to it granting permission for more than two dogs to be kept on a premises. The local government also has to take several factors into account for example the size and location of the property, fencing, shade, previous complaints from neighbouring residents, other public inputs and the risk that a precedent may be established that in time may lead to further complications, abuse or unhappiness. The council also has to consider factors that may justify the making of an exemption such as the particular circumstances of the applicants, the lack of previous complaints, the breed, the applicant's experience in handling dogs, and the motivation supporting the application for exemption.
See Douglas and City of Wanneroo [2014] WASAT 4 at [39]-[40]:
As stated, the respondent's Local Law does not identify any factors to be taken into account in assessing or approving an application for an exemption from the restriction of keeping only two dogs on premises. The Tribunal finds than none of the dogs on the applicant's premises is a dangerous dog. The German Shepherds are well maintained and the property is more than adequately fenced and gated to contain the German Shepherds and the Maltese. The Tribunal finds that the applicant's property is sufficient (16,000 m²) to accommodate the health and wellbeing needs of the German Shepherds, the hens and the Maltese. There is no evidence of any misconduct by or in relation to the Maltese. The Tribunal finds that the likelihood of any of the applicant's dogs straying has been diminished and the applicant's dogs are unlikely to create a nuisance resulting in any complaints by any reasonable neighbours. The Maltese is to be kept in the home, by and large, and there is no evidence that the additional dog will have any significant impact on the wellbeing and behaviour of the applicant's German Shepherds and horses.
There is no reason, in the Tribunal's view, why the applicant's application for an exemption from the restriction limiting the keeping of two dogs on the applicant's property made on 11 February 2013 should not be granted. For these reasons, the Tribunal shall set aside the reviewable decision to refuse the applicant's application and shall substitute its own decision to grant the applicant's application.
Mr Quarry referred the Tribunal to a previous decision of the Tribunal in Black and City of Canning [2015] WASAT 143. Having reviewed that decision, the Tribunal in this instance was not assisted by that decision in determining the issue in dispute in these proceedings.
The City's submissions
Whilst the City acknowledges that the Tribunal has the discretion to refuse the application for an exemption, it submits that its decision for the keeping of one additional dog should be affirmed.
The City further submits that the application seeking an exemption for three further 'foster' dogs in addition to the three 'permanent' dogs Mr Quarry already keeps should be refused by the Tribunal, in summary, for the following reasons:
(a)temporarily keeping any more than the three 'permanent' dogs would require a kennel establishment application;
(b)the nature of the three additional 'foster' dogs sought to be allowed at the property cannot be properly assessed to exercise the decision making discretion appropriately;
(c)the property is not suitable as the health and wellbeing of six dogs is not properly accommodated for principally due to the inadequate space for six dogs at the property; and
(d)the location is not suitable due to the density and strata title proximity issues and, even though there have been no nuisance complaints, there remains a significant future risk of nuisance if six dogs are permitted at the property.
As to the issue raised by the City that the true nature and character of the use proposed for the additional three 'foster' dogs is more equivalent with operating a dog kennel, the City submits, in summary, as follows:
(a)Under the Local Planning Scheme a 'dog kennel' means:
any land or buildings used for the boarding and breeding of dogs where such premises are registered or required to be registered by the Council; and may include the sale of dogs where such use is incidental to the predominant use.
(b)A dog kennel carries with it additional criteria requiring a different application pursuant to s 27 of the Dog Act and Part 4 of the Dog Local Law.
(c)Whilst the applicant has applied to be permitted to keep more than the prescribed number of dogs, the true nature of the activity that he wishes to carry on is a kennel and an application for such use would also need to be made. However, for the purpose of the application as made, the City considered it on the basis that the applicant wishes to keep more than two dogs, and for that reason has approved three dogs to be kept at the property.
(d)Section 26(3) of the Dog Act expressly requires that the City, and in this instance the Tribunal, turns its mind to the question of whether the true character of the activity is more equivalent with a dog kennel establishment.
(e)In submitting the Tribunal should also exercise its discretion to approve an additional dog to be kept at the property, the Tribunal should also deal with the application on the most generous interpretation of the requirements of the Dog Act, and on the basis that the additional approved dog would not be kept for 'foster', or boarding, but rather that the applicant is the registered owner of the additional dog under s 7 of the Dog Act.
Mr Quarry's submissions
Mr Quarry has made voluminous written submissions in support of his proposed 'fostering' of dogs where he is seeking an exemption for his own three 'permanent' dogs and up to three unidentified 'foster' dogs at any one time. Mr Quarry has also provided an extensive rebuttal of the respondent's statement of issues facts and contentions.
However, following consideration of these submissions the Tribunal has concluded that much of Mr Quarry's submissions and evidence provided in his bundle are simply not relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion upon review to grant an exemption under s 26(3) of the Dog Act and will not be repeated in these reasons.
Mr Quarry submits that, based on his review of Tribunal decisions under s26(3) of the Dog Act that the general indicia that should be considered to determine the outcome of his application are:
(a)the area of land;
(b)the number of dogs committed in an area of land;
(c)breeds of dogs permitted to be kept;
(d)size of dogs permitted to be kept;
(e)whether or not there is a risk of a nuisance been created;
(f)the accommodation and containment standards;
(g)the living conditions required;
(h)the risk of breeding occurring;
(i)the cleaning and appropriate disposal of all animal excreta;
(j)the exercise regime requirements;
(k)the degree the dogs will be alone at home; and
(l)the level of experience of the applicant.
Mr Quarry further submits in the four years that he has been at the property he has kept at times actually up to seven dogs in circumstances where:
(a)there have no neighbour complaints (indeed some view them favourably as watch dogs);
(b)there have been no nuisance complaints to the City as the single complaint received by the City was only regarding the number of dogs; and
(c)he is a very responsible as well as proactive dog owner and 'foster' carer of dogs so as to minimise any disruption to his neighbours.
In the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion under s 26(3) to exempt and thereby permit up to six dogs at his property, Mr Quarry submits that the Tribunal should take into account the lacunae, or gap, in the Dog Act as it does not provide for the changing focus of housing 'foster' dogs in residential properties whilst the re-homing process is undertaken rather than those organisations such as the RSPCA, the Dogs Refuge Home and any other prescribed body, that are exempt from the registration requirements under s 7(3) of the Dog Act.
Consideration
Following completion of the hearing there were no relevant factual disputes arising for determination by the Tribunal in these proceedings that requires the Tribunal to prefer one witness over another or determine credibility or reliability of evidence.
The Tribunal heard factual evidence from Mr Quarry, Senior Ranger Jane Rigney and Ranger Ian Whyborn.
The Tribunal found that Mr Quarry was an honest and forthright witness. The Tribunal found that Mr Quarry's treatment of the dogs in his care was responsible, indeed commendable, and his approach in the past and his intentions for the future to 'foster' dogs are laudable. However, just because the Tribunal has formed this favourable view of Mr Quarry does not mean that it is able to grant the exemption for six dogs as sought under the Dog Act when consideration is given to particularly relevant factors in this matter, such as the size of the property, the proximity of neighbours and the housing density in the immediate vicinity.
The Tribunal also found the City's witnesses to be honest and reliable witnesses of fact. The Tribunal was particularly impressed by the evidence, in witness statement and oral form, of Senior Ranger Rigney. The Tribunal also found the recommendation made by Senior Ranger Rigney to be logical and reasoned in its approach to the relevant matters to be taken into account in exercising a discretion under s 26(3) of the Dog Act: see tab 8 of the respondent's bundle of documents.
When consideration is given by the Tribunal to Mr Quarry's submission regarding his identified general indicia and the previous Tribunal decisions identified earlier in these reasons, it appears to the Tribunal that these factors, whether positive or negative, have, in substance, been taken into account in the recommendation made by Senior Ranger Jane Rigney. These factors have also been taken into account by the Tribunal in exercising its discretion in determining these proceedings.
Despite the commendable and laudable actions of Mr Quarry towards 'fostering' dogs and his intended permanent care of Sarkey, Brandy and Ouzo, the Tribunal has grappled with its decision in these proceedings as to whether the Tribunal should grant any exemption at all to Mr Quarry. The Tribunal has given considerable thought as to what decision it should make. The Tribunal has considerable concern that the circumstances of this particular property, such as its small size, its proximity to its strata title neighbours and its prescribed density under the Local Planning Scheme meant that this issue alone weighed heavily against an exemption being granted at all.
The Tribunal also has considerable concern that it cannot and should not grant an exemption for the three unidentified 'foster' dogs which even Mr Quarry concedes are an 'unknown quantity'. Such an 'unknown quantity' of 'foster' dogs could be a significant risk of future nuisance to the neighbours and the community. Having said that, the Tribunal weighs these concerns with its findings in relation to Mr Quarry as a responsible and commendable dog owner as well as the lack of any evidence of nuisance complaints in the past.
The Tribunal notes in this regard the Draft Standards and Guidelines for the Health and Welfare of Dogs in WA which recently closed for public consultation on 7 June 2019: see tab 16 of the respondent's bundle of documents. The Draft Standards provide guidance on dog housing which includes the importance of environmentally enriching and comfortable enclosures, in addition to a separate area for exercise and activity. The City submits that it is unlikely that there is sufficient space for six dogs at the property. Mr Quarry submits that there would not be six dogs at the premises at all times, however, the Tribunal finds that increasing the limit to any number beyond the prescribed two dogs would permit Mr Quarry to have that number of dogs at any given time and any decision should be based on that upper number.
The City submits that s 26(3) of the Dog Act requires consideration to be given as to whether the true nature and character of the use proposed for the additional three 'foster' dogs is more equivalent with operating a dog kennel. The Tribunal finds that it is satisfied that Sarkey, Brandy and Ouzo do not fall into this category, however the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the provisions of the Dog Act relating to kennel establishments should not be applied to the additional three dogs which would require a separate application process under s 27 of the Dog Act and the Dog Local Law.
Ultimately, the Tribunal needs to make a decision based on the evidence before it. That evidence includes the evidence of Mr Quarry and the finding by the Tribunal that he is a commendable and responsible dog owner as well the recommendation of Senior Ranger Rigney and the sound reasoning she provides for her recommendation. The Tribunal finds that the remaining issues of concern are addressed by the fact that all three 'permanent' dogs are microchipped, as well as Brandy and Ouzo, are, or will have their registration transferred to the City in due course, and are also addressed by the recommended special conditions to be imposed as follows:
(a)the permission is only for the specific three 'permanent' dogs Sarkey, Brandy and Ouzo;
(b)beyond the permitted two dogs, should any of the three 'permanent' dogs die or no longer be kept at the residence they cannot be replaced with the onus on Mr Quarry to notify the City of either of these events in a timely manner; and
(c)if any reasonable complaints are received, for instance nuisance barking, the City may review its permission (which the Tribunal notes can be done without the need for a special condition under s 26(3)(c) of the Dog Act).
Finally, Mr Quarry submits that the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion under s 26(3) of the Dog Act to exempt and thereby permit up to six dogs at his property, should take into account the lacunae, or gap, in the Dog Act as it does not provide for the changing focus of housing 'foster' dogs in residential properties as the re-homing process is undertaken rather than those organisations such as the RSPCA and the Dogs Refuge Home. The Tribunal is of the view that, firstly, taking such factors into account would be contrary to the express provisions of the Dog Act and the findings the Tribunal has made in relation to a kennel establishment. Secondly, the Tribunal is of the view that these issues are not a matter of appropriate exercise of discretion as they are outside the Tribunal's purview with such issues being a matter for Parliament if it considers amendments to the Dog Act are required.
Conclusion and orders
The Tribunal has given consideration to all of the evidence provided by the parties and their submissions. The Tribunal has concluded, in the exercise of its discretion, that the decision of the City on 11 April 2019 to exempt Mr Quarry under s 26(3) of the Dog Act of the prescribed number of dogs under the Dog Local Law by allowing one additional identified dog, is also the correct and preferable decision upon review.
Therefore, in accordance with these reasons, the Tribunal finds that, in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion on review that the correct and preferable decision at this time is to affirm the decision of the City on 11 April 2019. The Tribunal has determined that there is not a pressing need to amend the conditions as the issues of microchipping and registration have been clarified and are understood by both parties.
Accordingly, the Tribunal orders as follows:
1.Upon review, the decision of the respondent on 11 April 2019 is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS D QUINLAN, MEMBER
9 AUGUST 2019
4
2