Item - 2020.DG12.1

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal:

1. Confirmed the determination of a dangerous dog, that the conditions of the order remain in effect, and directed that the Tribunal forward the reasons for this decision to Saul Levine and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before October 7, 2020.

On September 22, 2020, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal reserved its decision and directed that the Tribunal forward its decision and reasons to Saul Levine and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before October 7, 2020.

On September 28, 2020, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal issued its decision and reasons for its decision as follows:

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal Panel was presented with a Dangerous Dog Order appeal. The Panel heard oral arguments from the Applicant Dr. Saul Levine, the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, and the Animal Care and Control officer Jim Konstantinidis. The dog owner, Gabby Luc and her mother, Nancy Ng who was walking the victim dog, Maia, at the time of the incident did not appear. The Panel also considered the documentation submitted by Dr. Levine, the Executive Director Municipal Licensing and Standards, Jim Konstantinidis, and Gaby Luc as well as a statement from Nancy Ng which had been translated into English by her daughter Gaby.

The panel determined that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by the dog in question. Further it determined the Order was issued in accordance with the by-law. The Panel concluded the act was unprovoked and not in self defense. As it was a first offence, the issue of severity of Maia’s injury was a key factor since for the order to be upheld the injury must be deemed to be severe.

The decision is based on the following evidence.

1. Charlotte and Maia were both being walked on leashes and passed each other in the hall of the condo building where they lived.

2. Charlotte had no history of aggression and in fact had been used on occasion in a therapy mode in Dr. Levine’s dental practice.

3. The 2 dogs had never met before except to see each other outside the mail room a few minutes earlier.

4. As they passed in the narrow hall Charlotte tugged on her leash and as Dr. Levine pulled her to the side the breakaway collar opened releasing Charlotte. She had never been seen off leash in the condo building or grounds before this incident.

5. There was no evidence offered of any provocation by Maia.

6. Charlotte approached Maia and bit her.

The Chair felt after weighing the evidence he was unable to come to the conclusion that the act was severe for the following reasons:

- there was no report of any blood by the dog owner’s mother nor did she feel she had to notify her daughter immediately but waited for her to come home. In the interim the dog was given and ate treats which is not consistent with the behavior one would expect form a severely injured dog.  

- when directly questioned the investigating officer could not justify why he had called the injury severe and the vet report did not call the injury severe. 

- although the after photos look serious, there were no pictures shown as to what the injury looked like before the wound was opened, cleaned and stapled.

On the other hand, Panel members Dr. Glaholt and Ms. Chaplick felt the injury was in fact severe citing the documentary, oral and photographic evidence including the photograph of the 6 staples Maia had received during her veterinary treatment.

Based on the evidence and for the reasons above, the Panel confirms by a split decision the determination of a Dangerous Dog Order.

It should be noted that because of the rules of the condo where Dr. Levine lives, he is prevented from posting the warning sign outlined in section 4 of the order on his door.

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued, September 27, 2019, Appeal DDRT2020-04