Item - 2020.DG9.3

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 Michelle Flax and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before January 29, 2020.

On January 21, 2020, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal issued reasons for its decision as follows:

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal Panel was presented with a Dangerous Dog Order appeal. The Panel considered the documentation submitted. Some material that had been submitted by the Applicant was not in the disclosure package but had been submitted within the allowable time and had been reviewed by the City. Based on this the Panel allowed the Applicant to read the content of the material into the record. In addition, the Panel heard oral arguments from the Applicant Michelle Flax, the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Animal Care and Control officer Jim Konstantinidis and Elaine Ko, the owner of the victim dog, Hobbes.

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.

The decision is based on the following evidence:

1.The two dogs were being walked on leashes as they passed each other when Josie, the aggressor dog, turned back and viscously attached Hobbes, the victim dog. Josie was 9 years younger and double the weight of Hobbes.

2. Josie grabbed Hobbes and shook Hobbes so violently that a large portion of fur and skin and were ripped of Hobbes‘ back.

3. The injury was so severe that for three days while receiving emergency ICU veterinary care Hobbes had to be in a body cast like device to keep internal organs in place.

4. Unfortunately, Hobbes died three days after the attack.

The Applicant felt the attack was in self-defense, but there was no evidence to support this. Even if this assertion were true, the attack was so out of proportion to any threat that a self-defense argument would not have been a reason to rescind the order.

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

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued on September 28, 2019, Appeal DDRT2020-03