Item - 2022.DG31.1

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 Shonagh McVean and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before September 30, 2022.

On September 15, 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 dog owner, Shonagh McVean, an Interested Party, Johnathan Bird a construction worker who witnessed the incident, as well as the Animal Care and Control Officer, Patrick Palubjak. Written documentation in the form of several references for Beatrix were also provided in the disclosure package. The parents of the three-year-old victim Kate Joyce, Melanie and Charles Joyce, also testified. Finally, the Tribunal received a report and testimony from Lenn Heafy, an animal behaviorist with considerable experience in testifying on canine aggression.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Beatrix, 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, was severe pursuant to the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 349-15. B (2) thus necessitating the issuance of a Dangerous Dog Order. The Tribunal was not presented with any evidence that Beatrix was acting in self-defense.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.  Kate Joyce was riding her balance bike on the sidewalk in front of Ms. McVean’s home.
2.  Melanie Joyce was pushing a stroller containing her two twins a short distance behind Kate.
3.  Beatrix, who was tethered to the front porch ran toward Kate when the clip on the tether broke open. Another dog, who belonged to Ms. McVean’s partner, remained tethered and was not involved in the incident.
4. The noise caused Ms. McVean to look up from her gardening. She saw Kate lying on the sidewalk. but did not know if Beatrix had knocked Kate off her bike or if Kate had fallen on her own.
5.  Ms. Joyce, seeing her daughter lying on the ground crying and bleeding, rushed to her side and picked her up to comfort her and attend to her as there was a lot of blood.
6.  Johnathan Bird and Ms. Joyce testified that the dog ran out into the street and then came back and tried to bite Kate while Ms. Joyce was holding her. They also added that they saw Kate’s head in Beatrix’s mouth. Ms. McVean said she did not see Beatrix circle back from the road and try to attack Kate.
7.  The incident ended when Ms. McVean grabbed Beatrix’s collar and took her in the house.
8.  Mr. Heafy did a re-creation of the incident with Beatrix and his own daughter and in his report said he could not duplicate any aggressive behavior on Beatrix’s part.
9.  A medical report from Sick Children’s Hospital was submitted regarding Kate’s injuries. Based on the report and photos of Kate’s injuries the Tribunal agreed with Mr. Palubjak that the injuries were severe.
10.  There was considerable discussion on whether there was an actual bite as opposed to lacerations but the Tribunal believed Beatrix’s actions of running at Kate was in itself a dangerous act.

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

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order, issued May 26, 2022, Appeal DDRT2022-10.