Item - 2021.DG17.1

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal:

1. Confirmed the determination of a dangerous dog, and directed that the conditions of the order remain in effect, and that the Tribunal forward the reasons for this decision to Marshall Walker and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before April 15, 2021.

On April 7, 2021, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal issued reasons for its decision as follows:

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal was presented with a Dangerous Dog Order appeal. The Tribunal considered oral and written arguments from the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Animal Care and Control Officer Jodi Savage, the Appellant Dr. Marshall Walker, his wife Sheila Walker and an Interested Party Mr. Tristan Rees-Jones, the owner of the victim dog Mya. The City chose to have Mr. Rees-Jones appear as a City witness as opposed to an Interested Party. The Tribunal accepted late evidence from Dr. Walker in the form of several “character” references for Annie.

The Tribunal determined that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by Annie the dog in question. Further it determined the Order, issued in accordance with the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 349, Section 15, was so issued in accordance with the by-law. The Tribunal concluded the dangerous act was the second dangerous act on record.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1. Annie was off leash when she ran across the road and approached Mya in a menacing manner.
2. The two dogs interacted with both animals barking at each other. Mr. Rees-Jones was able to separate the dogs by kicking Annie but upon doing so found saliva on Mya’s neck from the interaction. Mr. Rees-Jones testified the saliva on Mya was a result of Annie biting Mya on the neck. There were no visible injuries to Mya. Dr. Walker came across the road and took Annie home.
3. This was the second dangerous act formally on record for Annie with the City. The other act was a written warning issued in December 2019. Since there was no documentation of that dangerous act provided to the Tribunal except for a copy of the written warning, the Tribunal asked the City to provide more information about it and the City complied.  The Tribunal felt this detail about the earlier menacing behavior was necessary as two non-severe acts are required for an Animal Care and Control Officer to issue a Dangerous Dog Order.
4. The City provided documentation of other several incidents involving Annie including being a dog at large and being walked without a leash as well as some non-compliance with the Dangerous Dog Order. Conditions of the Dangerous Dog order remain in full force and effect unless it is rescinded by the Tribunal.
5. Dr. Walker admitted in his testimony that Annie had “a lengthy rap sheet”. He also admitted that he felt it was only necessary to comply with those parts of the order he felt were needed, which is contrary to the order. For example, he said because there had never been any issues with Annie in a dog park, he did not see the need to abide by the prohibition in the order against Annie going to a dog park.
 

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

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued, December 16, 2020, Appeal DDRT2021-07.