Here is my response.  The original letter is below my response.  The moral of this?  Police police themselves.  Animals have no protection.

Dear Police Service Advisor,

I am horrified that your complaints do not extend to non human animals.  Disregarding shooting a dog because they are not human is speciesism.  However, even from a species specific anthropogenic stance, shooting at a fast moving animal, often in a residential area, near cars, in traffic, in front of children often, shows a total disregard for human safety. Please change your policies to investigate all acts of police violence, regardless of species.  Humans do not exist in a vacuum and non human animals deserve to have someone looking out for them.

Sincerely, 

Nicole Corrado

777 Bay St.
7th Floor, Suite 701
Toronto ON M5G 2C8
777, rue Bay
7e étage, bureau 701
Toronto ON M5G 2C8
April 23, 2026
Via email: ntcorrado@rogers.com
Dear Nicole Corrado,
Re: IOP Complaint Number: 26-395
The Inspector General for Policing has reviewed your complaint that was forwarded by
LECA on April 22, 2026 Based on our review of your complaint concerning the conduct
of the Owen Sound Police (YRP) Service, the Inspector General has determined that
section 107(2)(b) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA) applies, and
it would not be in the public interest to investigate your complaint.
The following is an explanation for that decision.
Your complaint summary
During the arrest of a suspected impaired driver, a dog from the suspect’s vehicle bit an
officer. While one responding officer was reportedly managing the animal humanely,
another officer fatally shot the dog. The complaint indicates a petition has been started
regarding an alleged gap in police training to “humane canine handling”. You alleged
that there is a concern regarding the absence of independent oversight or external
investigations when police kill animals, which damages community trust.
The Inspector General of Policing’s mandate
The Inspector General of Policing has jurisdiction over complaints related to compliance
with Ontario's Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA) and its regulations by
police services, police service boards, and organizations that employ special
constables. The Inspector General of Policing also responds to complaints about
adequate and effective policing, the policies and services of boards and chiefs of police,
and allegations of misconduct by police service board members.
The Law Enforcement Complaints Agency’s mandate
The Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) is responsible for receiving,
managing, and overseeing public complaints about misconduct of police officers,
including: all municipal, regional, and provincial (OPP) police officers; Special
2
Constables employed by the Niagara Parks Commission; Peace Officers in the
Legislative Protective Service; and First Nations police officers if the police service opts
into the CSPA. As an independent civilian oversight agency, the LECA ensures all public
complaints against the police are dealt with in a manner that is transparent, effective,
and fair.
Decision
The Inspector General of Policing’s (IoP) jurisdiction to deal with complaints is governed
by the CSPA. All complaints are given serious and full consideration, and members of
the IoP apply a rigorous assessment process designed to identify complaints which
warrant further action. The CSPA also permits the Inspector General to refuse to
investigate policing complaints that are, in their opinion, not in the public interest.
The primary complaint involves the specific decision of one officer to use lethal force
during a police incident. Under the Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA),
allegations regarding the "bad judgment," "excessive force," or "misconduct" of a
specific officer fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Law Enforcement Complaints
Agency (LECA). The IoP is a systemic oversight body and does not have the mandate
to discipline individual officers or investigate single-event use-of-force incidents that do
not involve serious injury to a human.
In Ontario, independent investigations into police use of force are strictly governed by
the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). However, the SIU’s mandate is limited to incidents
involving death, serious injury, or allegations of sexual assault involving human beings.
Because this incident involves an animal, there is no statutory requirement under the
CSPA or the Special Investigations Unit Act for an independent "SIU-style" investigation,
and the IoP cannot unilaterally expand its mandate to create one.
Under Ontario’s Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA) and provincial use-of-force
standards, officers are permitted to discharge a firearm at an animal if they reasonably
believe it is necessary for self-preservation or the protection of the public from an
immediate threat of serious injury.
The petition demands "Independent Review Boards" and "Policy Reforms" specifically
for Owen Sound. Under the CSPA, the Owen Sound Police Services Board is the body
legally responsible for determining the "objectives and priorities" of the local service
and establishing local policies. The IoP generally only intervenes if a Board fails
to provide any oversight at all. Board meetings are public, and you can provide a
delegation to the Board.
The complaint assumes a systemic training deficiency based solely on a single incident.
However, it provides no factual evidence to suggest the officer’s actions deviated from
established protocols. Asserting that an officer should be held accountable for
exercising their legal right to self-defense does not constitute a valid critique of the
agency's overall adequacy or effectiveness.
3
Matters regarding the humane treatment of animals and whether an
act constitutes "unnecessary cruelty" are often handled under the Provincial Animal
Welfare Services (PAWS) Act. If there is a question of whether the shooting was legally
justified under animal cruelty laws, Provincial Animal Welfare Inspectors, rather than the
Inspectorate of Policing have the specialized expertise and legislative framework to
investigate.
Section 107(2)(b) of the CSPA permits the Inspector General to decline to investigate a
complaint where they have formed the opinion, having regard to all the circumstances,
that dealing with the complaint is not in the public interest. In this case, the Inspector
General has concluded, based on a review of your complaint, as well as having
considered the criteria delineated in subsections 107(3)(a)-(d), that it is not in the public
interest to proceed with an investigation.
Our file is now closed and is not subject to appeal.
Sincerely,
Police Service Advisor
The Inspectorate of Policing

April 22, 2026
Via email: ntcorrado@rogers.com
Nicole Corrado

Dear Ms. Corrado:
Re: Public Complaint: Owen Sound Police Service
LECA Complaint Number: E-202603100117138405
On March 10, 2026, the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) received your 
complaint about the Owen Sound Police Service (OSPS).
In your complaint, you describe an incident that happened on March 8, 2026, during an 
impaired driving arrest. You state that a dog bit an officer and was then shot by another 
officer. You also included a news link about the incident. You raise concerns about how the 
situation was handled and say that police need better training and policies to deal with 
animals using non-lethal methods. You also call for changes such as improved training, 
clearer policies, and independent investigations regarding canine handling in the field.
After reviewing your complaint, LECA did not identify any issues of potential police 
misconduct, rather found that the main concern relates to broader policy issues about the 
handling of canines in the field by police, and specifically OSPS policy issues regarding 
officer canine handling in the field, such as police training, policies, and how services are 
provided.
These issues fall within the mandate of the Inspector General of Policing (IOP) under section 
107 of the Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA), which is responsible for overseeing 
whether police services provide adequate and effective policing.
As such, the IOP may be the most appropriate agency to address your concerns. 
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 108(1) and 158 of the CSPA, we are forwarding your 
above-noted complaint to the IOP for their consideration and are closing our file.
The Inspector General of Policing is responsible for receiving and addressing complaints 
about compliance with Ontario's Community Safety and Policing Act and its associated 
regulations by police services, police service boards, and organizations employing special 
constables. This encompasses complaints regarding the provision of adequate and effective 
policing and the conduct of police service board members. Besides addressing public 
complaints, the Inspector General also accepts disclosures of misconduct from both police officers and special constables. For more information, please visit their website at 
www.IOPontario.ca
There is no appeal from a decision of the Complaints Director’s refusal to investigate your 
complaint. If you wish to challenge this decision, you may bring a judicial review application 
in the Divisional Court which is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice. Information about 
the judicial review process is attached for your information. 
Sincerely, 
On behalf of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency,
Case Management Department
Local: 416-246-7071 
Toll-free: 1-877-411-4773