Item - 2022.DG32.1

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 Xinyuan Zhang and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before November 4, 2022.

On October 20, 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 representative of the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards Ms. Jasmine Herzog-Evans, and counsel for the appellant Edward Zhou, as well as the appellant herself Xinyuan Zhang, and Meteel Srougi owner of the victim dog Brasco. Oral testimony was heard from Winford Alleyne, an Animal Care and Control Supervisor who read into the record the report by Jerry Higgins the investigating officer who no longer works for the City, and Yuan Chunlin boyfriend of the appellant who was in control of the subject dog Kiwi at the time of the dangerous act. Jianhui Lin acted as an interpreter/translator for the appellant and her boyfriend.

The Tribunal also viewed a security video of the attack provided by building management of [redacted] where the incident occurred. In addition, a medical report regarding Brasco’s injuries was included in the disclosure package.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Kiwi the dog in question. Further, the Tribunal determined that 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 considered whether Kiwi was acting in self-defence but concluded that, although Kiwi might have felt threatened or might have been protecting his younger sibling, as indicated by the appellant, his response was not proportional to any threat posed by Brasco.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1. The 18th floor terrace of [redacted] contains an off-leash dog park separated from a leash-required common area by a concrete planter and a metal fence.

2. Brasco was being walked in the non-dog park area by Ms. Srouji and was unleashed. He was separated from Kiwi and Kiwi’s sibling, another Husky, who were on the other side of the concrete planter and fence inside the off-leash dog park.

3. Brasco approached the metal fence and tried to sniff the other dogs.

4. Within seconds of Braso’s approach, Kiwi jumped over the planter and jumped down onto the ground of the non-dog park area, and attacked and bit Brasco.

5. Mr. Chunlin opened the metal gate separating the dog park and non-dog park areas.

6. Along with Ms. Srouji, Mr. Chunlin tried to separate Brasco from Kiwi but Kiwi clamped down on Brasco and would not release him for several seconds. Kiwi could be seen on video shaking Brasco while in his mouth.

7.  Kiwi’s sibling tried to engage Brasco by jumping up towards Brasco, even after Ms. Srouji separated Brasco from Kiwi.

8. The attack ended when Ms. Srouji was able to leave with Brasco in her arms. She subsequently took Brasco to an Emergency Veterinary clinic nearby on Yonge St. for medical treatment.

9. Brasco suffered bite injuries to his neck and shoulder and needed emergency veterinary treatment.

10. A copy of the medical report was included in the disclosure package and was reviewed by the Tribunal.

11. Mr. Zhou suggested that testimony from Ms. Zhang and Mr. Chunlin indicated Kiwi was acting in self-defence, even though Kiwi jumped over the concrete planter as soon as he saw Brasco. He also suggested that injuries to Brasco were worsened by the process of separating the two dogs due to gravity and force applied by the humans. The Tribunal did not give significant weight to this testimony based on viewing the impartial video and because Kiwi attacked/bit Brasco.

12. The Tribunal concluded that Kiwi committed a dangerous act that was severe, that Kiwi was not acting in self-defence, and that the bite/attack was not proportionate to any potential threat posed by Brasco.

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 March 10, 2022, Appeal DDRT2022-09.