Item - 2021.DG25.2

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal:

1. Rescinded the determination of a dangerous dog and exempted the applicant from compliance with the Dangerous Dog Order issued April 27, 2021, and directed that the Tribunal forward the reasons for this decision to Fayssal Itani 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 Review. The Tribunal considered oral and written arguments and considered testimony, as applicable, from the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Animal Care and Control Officer Jodi Savage, the Appellant Fayssal Itani well as his counsel Marcus McCann of Millard and Co. LLP. The Interested Party, namely the victim Brenda Landry, provided an unsworn written statement but indicated to the City she would not be testifying.

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 separate, 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. She sustained puncture wounds to her left arm and a broken left wrist.

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 did the biting.

10.  Sumsum received a cut on his ear but did not require veterinary attention. Daisy was not injured.

11.  Ms. Landry was taken to hospital by ambulance for treatment of her injuries. The Tribunal agreed the injuries were severe.

12.  Officer Savage testified she issued the order based on the written but unsworn evidence provided by Ms. Landry.

13.  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.

14.  There were unanswered questions concerning the ten-day time lapse between the initial X-ray of Ms. Landry’s arm showing no break, and the subsequent X Ray ten days later showing a break as well as the type of fracture and whether it was consistent with a dog bite.

15.  Even considering a balance of probabilities there was no way to determine which dog caused the injury to Ms. Landry, especially given Ms. Landry said in her written statement she “jumped in” to the scrum between the two dogs.
 

The Tribunal was concerned with the issue raised by Mr. McCann, that Ms. Landry’s evidence was not able to be tested at an oral hearing.

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

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 DDRT2021-13.