Item - 2021.DG26.1

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 Debrah Stocks and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before December 23, 2021.

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal Panel was presented with a Dangerous Dog Order Review requested by the City. The Tribunal heard oral and written arguments from the dog owner’s Representative, Registered Paralegal Mary-Anne Thompson, Piper’s owner, Ms. Debrah Stocks, the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards represented by Samuel Mazzuca of the City’s Legal Services, the Animal Care and Control Officer Jim Konstantinidis, Veterinarian Dr. Sagi Denenberg of the North Toronto Veterinary Behavior Clinic, Piper’s Veterinarian Dr. Jennifer McMullen, Veterinarian Dr. Jackie Haas who examined Atlas after he was brought to her small animal clinic following the attack, Veterinarian Dr. Rebecca Egan who performed the necropsy on Atlas, and Animal Behaviorist Kerry Vinson.

The Tribunal also considered written arguments from Bark Busters’ Therapist and Master Trainer, Monica Simpson. In addition, the Tribunal had the opportunity to review several written “character references” from people who know Piper. As well, medical records including a revised necropsy on the victim dog Atlas were entered into evidence.

The dog walker, Jim Cain, asked to be given Party status. After hearing arguments from Mr. Cain and both parties, the Tribunal denied party status, but decided to allow Mr. Cain to speak, but limited his testimony to five minutes because of some inflammatory remarks he made during his request. The Tribunal allowed questions above and beyond the five minutes from both parties and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence.

1. Ms. Mayvis Rebeira, Atlas’ owner, hired Mr. Jim Cain to walk her young puppy, a female miniature Schnauzer named “Atlas.” Her intention was to have Atlas socialized and exercised.

2. For their first walk together, Mr. Cain preferred to walk Atlas alone. However, Ms. Rebeira asked him to walk Atlas in the company of another dog for the purpose of socialization. They agreed that Mr. Cain would walk Atlas with a male adult standard poodle named “Piper”, with whom Mr. Cain was familiar with.

3.  Mr. Cain arrived with Piper at Ms. Rebeira’s condominium and took the two dogs out for a walk.

4. Security footage from the outside of the condominium lobby showed Atlas resisting the walk. Piper nosed Atlas several times. When Atlas stopped at the end of the building’s walkway before crossing, Piper nudged Atlas again with his nose. Mr. Vinson and Dr. McMullen testified on reviewing the footage, that the nose nudging was done with a closed mouth. Dr. Denenberg testified that whether Piper’s mouth was opened or closed, it did not make a difference, as those actions indicated a sign of ‘bullying’ tendencies. The Tribunal did not see any biting actions in the video.

5. Mr. Cain interacted with various bystanders during his 10 – 20-minute walk with Atlas. Although three neighbors around the park indicated they had seen Mr. Cain with two dogs, none of them described seeing any blood or any actual attack by Piper, according to statements obtained by Animal Care and Control Officer Jim Konstantinidis.

6. Piper was the sole dog present the whole time with Mr. Cain, notwithstanding there was no video evidence that Piper bit Atlas.

7. One of those neighbors indicated hearing noises in the bushes that sounded like “squirrels fighting.”

8. At one point, Atlas bit Mr. Cain when he picked Atlas up causing a minor injury to Mr. Cain’s thumb. Mr. Cain indicated in his testimony that he may have injured Atlas with his long nails, which he was growing to play guitar, and tight grip, when he grabbed and “fumbled” Atlas when picking her up.

9. Mr. Cain noticed blood coming from Atlas’ mouth. He testified that the blood came from Atlas’ mouth, after Atlas was grabbed and “fumbled.”

10. Mr. Cain returned to the condominium after the incident. A photograph of Mr. Cain in the elevator showed him carrying Atlas while on her back in his arms, with blood on his shorts, arm, and shirt.

12. Mr. Cain returned Atlas to Ms. Rebeira. He advised Ms. Rebeira that Atlas had broken a tooth when Atlas bit him and that she should watch for any bleeding from Atlas’ mouth. He indicated that Ms. Rebeira did not need to get urgent veterinary care for Atlas.

13. Ms. Rebeira was alarmed by Atlas’ lethargy and by the blood coming out of Atlas’ mouth. She called her Veterinarian’s office. Mr. Cain spoke to the receptionist as the Veterinarian was not scheduled until the afternoon. He told her what had happened from his perspective i.e., that Atlas might have a broken tooth.

14. Ms. Rebeira requested that Mr. Cain accompany her to her Veterinarian, as she was concerned about driving but Mr. Cain declined.

15. Mr. Cain left the condominium and returned Piper to Ms. Stocks and did not mention anything about the incident to Ms. Stocks at that time. In her testimony, she stated she did not see any blood on Piper.

16. Later in the afternoon, Ms. Rebeira was concerned about the lethargy Atlas was demonstrating while lying on the kitchen floor. She picked Atlas up and found blood all over the floor. She rushed him to her Veterinarian, where despite the best efforts of the Veterinarian, Dr. Haas, Atlas was pronounced dead.

17. The University of Guelph performed a necropsy at Ms. Rebeira’s request. The necropsy report indicated the presence of a puncture wound to the lung, fractured ribs, and severe internal bleeding. The report does not indicate that Atlas had any broken teeth.

18. The necropsy, however, clearly indicated that Atlas’ injuries could not have been caused by Mr. Cain’s long nails or his fumbling of Atlas, given that the pressure required to penetrate skin, tissue, muscle, and the inner layer of the thorax. Dr. Denenberg stated that there was no ground in reality that a human nail could cause such significant injuries.

19. Dr. Egan testified that the fatal injuries were suggestive of an encounter with a large canine based on the size and location of the puncture wounds. Dr. Haas and Dr. Denenberg agreed with this finding. Dr. Denenberg also stated that the severe/fatal injury to Atlas occurred after Mr. Cain had carriage of Atlas, as Atlas was observed to be active and resistant prior to the walk, which meant that the severe/fatal injury could not have occurred prior to Mr. Cain’s carriage because it would not be possible for Atlas to be in such condition, if he was already severely/fatally bitten.

20. The accumulation of all of Atlas' injuries caused his death.

21. A well-trained dog can be dangerous in certain circumstances.

22. Dr. McMullen did not disagree with Dr. Egan’s conclusion but said she could not believe Piper was responsible as he was her most docile patient and had never shown any signs of aggression.

The main reason for the decision in DG 16.1 to rescind the order was based on a balance of probabilities belief that Mr. Cain had caused the injury to Atlas with his nail and fumbling of Atlas. Based on the evidence presented in this Review, the Tribunal unanimously rejects this possibility.

Although there were no eyewitnesses and all the evidence was circumstantial, the majority of the Tribunal believed that the circumstantial evidence was compelling and on a balance of probabilities, it was more probable that Piper was the offending dog that severely bit Atlas. They agreed with Dr. Denenberg that Piper exhibited frustrated and aroused behavior, that could lead to aggression. They gave less weight to Mr. Vinson’s testimony versus the testimony of the Veterinarians. They felt that it was difficult to accept and more improbable that an unidentified dog or canid, that no one had observed, was the offending animal.

The dissenting Tribunal member believed there was more than a fifty percent chance that Piper was not the attacker. This view was based on Dr. McMullen’s assessment of Piper over six years, the lack of blood on Piper, and that the City had not included the videos of Piper playing with several other dogs, submitted by Ms. Stocks, to Dr. Denenberg, which may have altered his conclusions. This member also believed the fact no one saw any other dogs near Atlas, could be explained by the noises coming from the bushes was a dog attacking Atlas.

Based on the evidence and for the reasons above, the Tribunal, by a majority vote, the Tribunal overturns the rescinding of the Dangerous Dog Order in decision DDRT-01-2021 16.1 and reinstates 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 rehear Appeal DDRT2021-01 in whole.