Item - 2021.DG25.1

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal:

1. Confirmed the determination of a dangerous dog, and direct that the conditions of the order remain in effect, and that the Tribunal forward the reasons for this decision to Jian Yao and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before December 3, 2021.

On November 26, 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 acting Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Animal Care and Control Officer Patrick Palubjak, and the Appellant’s wife, Ying Zhou, as well as an Interested Party, Mary Finn, the owner of the victim dog Wollie. Shadow’s owner, Jian Yao, husband of Ying Zhou, provided written arguments.

The Tribunal determined that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by Shadow, 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 or subsequent dangerous act on record for Shadow.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.  Shadow was in the fenced-in backyard of his owner, Mr. Yao along with Mr. Yao’s wife, Ms. Zhou.

2.  The couple attempted to always take great care to ensure that the gate to the yard remained closed.

3.  Unfortunately, on this occasion, Shadow squeezed by Mr. Yao when he was in the process of taking items from the back yard to load in his vehicle in his driveway.

4.  Shadow ran across the street and interacted with Woolie who was being walked on leash by Ms. Finn on the sidewalk.

5.  Ms. Finn screamed and said she picked up Wollie and held her dog in her arms to keep Shadow away from him. She felt based on Shadow’s actions, the initial contact and Shadow’s growling and circling, her dog Wollie was still in danger, and she felt she was now also in danger of being bitten.

6.  Mr. Yao felt Shadow was just trying to sniff Wollie and did not feel there been any attack as he could not see any wound on Woolie, even when Ms. Finn pointed out the red fur, which she said was blood on Woolie.

7.  One discrepancy in the descriptions of the incident was that Ms. Finn said she picked up her dog and held him in her arms while Mr. Yao said he separated the two dogs.

8.  Mr. Yao offered to drive Ms. Finn and Wollie to a veterinarian clinic and offered to pay for any expenses.

9.  Ms. Finn refused as she felt uncomfortable going in a car with a man she did not know.

10.  Ms. Finn called her husband and he picked her and Wollie up.

11.  Ms. Finn called a veterinarian emergency clinic and described the wound which she had cleaned when she got home. She was told it would be a six to eight hour wait to see a veterinarian and from her description of the injury she should just monitor the injury at home.

12.  Ms. Finn’s photographs of Woolie’s non-severe injury were submitted as evidence by Officer Palubjak.

13.  There was some discussion by Ms. Zhou around the prior incident on file which occurred on November 12, 2016. Ms. Zhou was not contesting that a bite had occurred but felt it was “instinct”.  

As noted above, the Tribunal concluded that the dangerous act, although resulting in non-severe injuries, was the second or subsequent dangerous act on record for Shadow.

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, June 29, 2021, Appeal DDRT2021-15.