Item - 2022.DG33.1

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 Juleth Dawson and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before November 25, 2022.

On November 10, 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 Julia Guerrieri and an Interested Party Rachel Black, owner of the victim dog Max, as well as written arguments from the dog owner, Juleth Dawson. There were no oral arguments from the appellant, on the hearing date, as neither Ms. Dawson or her husband Rod Byrnes appeared even after attempts were made to contact them by email and by phone. The Tribunal decided to proceed in their absence as permitted by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal determined by a split decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Max, 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 that the dangerous act, although not severe, was the second dangerous act on record thus necessitating the issuance of a Dangerous Dog Order.  

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.  Max was on the porch of his residence with a man who was on his phone.  The man was later identified as Rod Byrnes, the husband of Max’s owner.

2.  Ms. Black was walking her dog Lovey Dovey in front of Max’s house. There was an iron fence with space between the bars of the fence on the perimeter of Max’s property.

3.  Lovey Dovey was sniffing outside the fence.

4.  Max ran off the porch toward the fence and proceeded to bark at Lovey Dovey through the fence.

5.  Max then put his mouth through one of the openings and bit Lovey Dovey injuring the victim dog’s left lip.

6.  Ms. Black called to the man on the porch but he remained on his phone and refused to become involved telling Ms. Black the incident was her fault.

7.  Lovey Dovey did not require veterinary care.

Based on the evidence and for the reasons above, the Tribunal confirms by a split decision, the determination of the Dangerous Dog Order. The dissenting Tribunal member believed it was unclear if Max was entirely on his owner’s property or if he extended his muzzle through the fence towards Lovey Dovey. That Member believed that—if the incident took place on the owner’s property— Max may have been acting in self-defence after feeling threatened. Further, the incident began peacefully and then devolved into barking and a bite.

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued August 19, 2022, Appeal DDRT2022-16.