Item - 2022.DG29.3

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 Giti Zare and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before June 10, 2022.

On June 6, 2022, 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 Jim Konstantinidis, the Appellant Giti Zara’s daughter, Maryam Shafikhani and her daughter’s boyfriend Dr. Fariz Remtulla. In addition, there was testimony from the victim, Gloria (Ziqing) Wang and Anne Lee, the principal of Don Valley Middle school.

The Tribunal determined by a split decision, that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by Max 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 it was the first dangerous act on record, resulted in a severe injury thus necessitating the Dangerous Dog Order. The Tribunal considered whether Max was acting in self-defense but concluded that, although Max was startled his response exceeded the level of self-defense.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.  Max was being walked on a leash near the border of Linus Park and the adjoining schoolyard of Don Valley Middle School by Ms. Shafikhani and Dr. Remtulla.

 
2.  As it was a hot day and a steep hill that had just been climbed, they stopped at the crest of the hill to give Max some water.

3.  Ms. Shafikhani crouched down and held the water bowl so Max could drink. She was in an unstable position on the hill with the leash wrapped around her arm. Max was also in a vulnerable position as he tried to drink while maintaining his balance.

4.  Suddenly they became aware of a woman in a bright orange vest approaching them rapidly from behind yelling at them “excuse me, excuse me”. Ms. Shafikhani repeatedly told her to stop and raised her hand in the universal stop position repeatedly saying for her not to come near them.

5.  The orange vested woman, later identified as Gloria Wang, a lunchroom supervisor, continued to approach. Max lunged at her, according to Ms. Shafikhani instinctively to protect himself and her and her boyfriend who were startled and in unstable positions.

6.  Ms. Shafikhani said it was a quick light warning bite with an immediate release far less damaging than an attacking Rotweiller was capable of.

7.  There was some disagreement as to whether or not they were actually on school property. Although there was signage it was not readily visible from all angles.

8.  There was also some disagreement as to how close Ms. Wang was in her final approach prior to the bite.

9.  Finally, there was also disagreement as to the position of the leash and the timing of it being held.

10.  As Max lunged Ms. Shafikhani from her unstable position was dragged along the ground as shown by dirt marks on her clothing.

11.  Ms. Shafikhani felt Ms. Wang was less than truthful and asked the police to be summoned. A police report was part of the evidence submitted.

12.  After composing herself Ms. Wang was able to walk back to the school and as she did not drive went with a colleague in the colleague’s car to North York General Hospital.

13.  The dissenting Tribunal member felt the City’s argument that the injuries were severe was not a strong case, given the City had not requested or reviewed the North York General Hospital’s medical report on the victim. As there were no other dangerous acts on file, this dangerous act had to be severe in order for a Dangerous Dog Order to apply. 
 

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, February 26, 2022, Appeal DDRT2022-05.