The San Fernando City Corporation has offered to settle a legal claim from a businessman from San Fernando and his secretary, whose adopted dog was improperly captured and euthanized by the corporation’s canine unit.
Guardian Media understands that the corporation’s acting chief executive officer Kathy-Ann Mills-Mark mentioned the offer made by the corporation’s insurer in a letter sent to Teeluckdharry Boodram and Kavita Basdeo’s attorneys, last Friday.
In the correspondence obtained by Guardian Media, Mills-Mark said that based on what transpired with the duo’s dog, the corporation had decided to adopt new policies and procedures aimed at preventing any acts of misconduct or unlawful treatment of dogs.
“These steps, policies, and procedures are expected to take effect immediately with revisions of the same being made from time to time,” she said.
She invited the duo to the corporation’s monthly statutory meetings so they could make their own suggestions on possible changes.
“We also undertake to implement said policies and to train our members of staff and to raise awareness for members of the public to better understand the role of the Canine Unit and also the proper procedure for making and dealing with complaints in relation to animals,” she said as she expressed hope that the settlement offer, as well as the undertaking to amend its policies, would suffice in bringing the legal issue to an end.
Guardian Media understands that the offer was subsequently accepted by the duo.
According to reports, in August 2021, Boodram, the owner of Glen’s Alignment Services located in Cocoyea Village, San Fernando, and Basdeo adopted two mixed-breed dogs.
The dogs, who they named Ginger and Mary, would stay on Boodram’s property and interact with customers and workers throughout the day.
The duo claimed that on August 11, last year, members of the corporation’s Canine Control Unit (CCU) attempted to capture the dogs while they were in the vicinity of a pharmacy located adjacent to Boodram’s business.
Ginger was captured but Mary managed to evade the dog catchers.
After they heard what transpired, Boodram and Basdeo drove around the community to locate the CCU vehicle.
When they eventually did, they were told that Ginger was released at King’s Wharf.
After unsuccessfully searching the area for the dog, the duo went to the CCU’s offices in San Fernando to get more detailed directions on where the dog was dropped off and were told it was at a Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) facility.
The duo was allowed to search the WASA compound but still did not locate their dog.
They eventually found out that Ginger was not released as claimed but instead euthanised by a veterinarian.
Basdeo claimed that she was traumatised by what transpired and was prescribed antidepressants by her doctor.
Before issuing the legal threat, the duo made an application under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for details on the unit’s procedure for detaining a stray dog after receiving a complaint.
While the unit admitted that it would investigate complaints before detaining a dog, it admitted that no investigation was done after the pharmacy lodged a complaint. It also admitted that Ginger was euthanised within 90 minutes of her capture.
The duo’s lawyer Vidal Pooran claimed that the unit’s actions were in breach of Section 6 of the Dogs Act, which requires a local authority to detain a stray dog for five days to allow it to be claimed if it has an owner.
The legislation only empowers the local authority to immediately euthanise the animal if it is found in poor health or poses a danger to the public.
Through the proposed lawsuit, the duo was seeking general damages for negligence and aggravated damages for the conduct of the unit.
Boodram and Basdeo were also represented by Matthew Gayle, Crystal Paul, Jason Jones and Amy Rajkumar.