Item - 2021.DG21.2

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 Fayssal Itani and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before September 3, 2021.

On August 25, 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 Fayssal Itani as well as his counsel Marcus McCann of Millard and Co. LLP. The Interested Party, namely the victim Brenda Landry provided a written statement.

The Tribunal determined that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by SumSum 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, although the first on record, was severe.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence.

1. On April 11, 2021, Mr. Itani was playing fetch with a ball with his dog SumSum in Stanley Park at 845 King Street West.
2. Ms. Landry was in the process of leaving the park when her dog Daisy took SumSum’s ball.
3. Mr. Itani and SumSum followed Daisy who went back to Ms. Landry with the ball.
4. Ms. Landry told Daisy to drop the ball which she did eventually. It was at about at this point that the two dogs got into a fight with each other.
5. Mr. Itani tried to separate the dogs by holding onto each dog’s collar using his left hand for one dog’s collar and his right hand for the other dog’s collar.
6. As he was having trouble keeping them separated, Ms. Landry, fearing her dog would be seriously injured, reached into the melee and grabbed her dog’s collar with her right hand and removed her dog.
7. In the process, she was bitten on the left wrist by SumSum. She sustained puncture wounds to her left arm and a fractured Ulnar styloid.
8. Ms. Landry was certain the bite was not from her own dog but from SumSum
9. Mr. Itani did not see the bite and could not say which dog bit Ms. Landry.
10. Ms. Landry was taken to hospital by ambulance for treatment of her injuries. The Tribunal agreed the injuries were severe.
11. Officer Savage testified she issued the order based on the evidence provided by Ms. Landry.
12. There were some inconsistencies in the evidence provided by Mr. Itani and Ms. Landry which centered around the leashing status of the two dogs, Mr. Itani’s method of separation and its success or lack of it.
13. Two of the Tribunal members gave more weight to and accepted Ms. Landry’s version of events and as such voted that on a balance of probabilities the order should be confirmed.
14. The third member of the Tribunal felt, that in evaluating the inconsistencies, confirming the order required too much weight being put on Ms. Landry’s evidence and as such voted against confirming the order. 

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

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued, April 27, 2021, Appeal DDRT2021-13.