Item - 2021.DG18.3

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 Douglas Bassett and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before June 4, 2021.

On May 20, 2021, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal reserved its decision and directed that the Tribunal forward its decision and reasons to Douglas Bassett and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before June 4, 2021.

On May 26, 2021, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal issued its decision and 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 Officers Jodi Savage and Don Smith, the Appellant Douglas Bassett and his wife Susan, their housekeeper, Divina Mendosa, and dog walker Jennifer Johnston as well as an Interested Party, namely the victim dog owner Wynn Theriault. In addition, the Tribunal considered several “character references” for the subject dog Network, including references from neighbours, the dog’s veterinarian and the dog’s trainer as well as Sergeant Shain Griffin of the Toronto Police Service.

The Tribunal determined that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by Network 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 unprovoked and not in self-defence and was the second dangerous act on record.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence.

1. Network was being walked by Ms. Mendosa on her daily 1 p.m. walk on September 23, 2020. As they passed the residence of Ms. Theriault Network went up two steps into the property and behind a bush. There was a dog that yelped, and Ms. Mendosa pulled Network back onto the sidewalk and reprimanded Network. Seeing no other dog, they continued on their way.
2. Ms. Theriault testified she saw Network bite her dog and heard a yelp and immediately ran over and saw her dog shaking and coming toward her. She examined her dog and found her side wet which she felt was from another dog’s saliva. Her dog was trembling. She could not find any injuries but took her dog to the veterinarian that afternoon and he confirmed there were no injuries.
3. Network’s dangerous act was unprovoked as Ms. Theriault’s dog was quietly eating grass on her own property.
4. There was a previous documented incident on record for Network with the City for menacing behaviour on November 3, 2019 which resulted in a written warning. In that incident Mr. Bassett accidentally dropped Network’s leash and the dog ran across the road barking at Ms. Theriault and/or her dog. Upon arriving, Network stopped at Ms. Theriault’s feet and there was no contact. Ms. Theriault picked up her dog to about shoulder height to protect her dog and Mr. Bassett crossed the road and picked up Network’s leash and took her home.
5. Since the Dangerous Dog Order was contingent upon the act being considered as a second non- severe dangerous act, there was considerable discussion around it. Two of the three Tribunal members felt the behavior was menacing causing Ms. Theriault to fear for her safety and the safety of her dog. The third Tribunal member felt it was not menacing as Network took no aggressive action when she was in proximity to Ms. Theriault or her dog. Animal Care and Control Officer Don Smith testified because he felt Ms. Theriault expressed fear that made the act in his view menacing. The dissenting Tribunal member noted that “menacing” is not defined in Section 349 and that Officer Smith testified that Section 349 does not refer to someone’s fear as cause for an act to be considered menacing. 

Based on the evidence and for the reasons above, the Tribunal confirms the determination of the Dangerous Dog Order by a two to one vote.

In accordance with Section 21 of the Rules of Procedure, the Chair of the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal has granted a request for review and has ordered a review hearing to hear appeal DDRT2021-05 in whole.