Item - 2022.DG29.1

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 Balachandran Paramalingam and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, on or before June 10, 2022.

On May 26, 2022, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal reserved its decision and directed that the Tribunal forward its decision and reasons to Balachandran Paramalingham and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before June 10, 2022.

On June 6, 2022, 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 Officer Jim Constantinidis, and the dog owner Mr. Balachandran Paramalingham’s representative Balachandran Nedumaran. The Tribunal also heard testimony from Sasi Kala Nedumaran, a relative of Mr. Paramalingham as well as from Sam Tram, son-in-law of the victim Yeon Kay Dai. The victim’s statement was read into the record, but he did not testify. In addition to acting as Mr. Paramalingham’s representative, Mr. Nedumaran testified under oath, as a relative of Mr. Paramalingham.

The Tribunal determined that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by Zeus, the dog in question. Further the Tribunal 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 dangerous act on record (in addition to a previous dog at large notification),

resulted in severe injuries to the victim, necessitating the Dangerous Dog Order.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.  Zeus, the dog in question, escaped from his home through the front door after a visitor entered the home and the door was not closed properly.

2.  Zeus proceeded to run across his lawn to the driveway of the next-door neighbor Mr. Yeon Kay Dai. Mr. Dai had just arrived home and was unloading groceries from his trunk.

3.  Zeus attacked the victim causing multiple injuries and causing Mr. Dai to fall. The attack continued as Zeus dragged Mr. Dai down the driveway. With the help of a neighbor the dog and the victim were separated. None of the other three adults who exited the car were attacked.

4.  During the testimony it came to light that Mr. Dai, concerned about the dog’s barking on more than one occasion, had allegedly thrown stones through the fence at Zeus.

5.  Those alleged incidents were not on the same day as the attack on Mr. Dai.

6.  Members of the Paramalingham family, although testifying that they witnessed stone throwing incidents and indicating they had asked Mr. Dai to stop, did not alert Animal Services as they did not want to endanger a friendly neighborhood relationship.

7.  The Tribunal determined Zeus’s attack was not in self-defense due to the time lapse, and the fact the attack took place only after Zeus left his property and went onto Mr. Dai’s property to attack him.
 

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, January 16, 2022, Appeal DDRT2022-03.