Item - 2022.DG33.3

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 Danielle Wang 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 dog owner, Danielle Wang and her husband and agent Gabriel Peracchia, the victim dog owner Dritan Rexho and Interested Parties Phillip Marks and Mary Bicos. Written documentation in the form of a report by Bark Busters regarding Carol, the dog in question, was received and accepted as a late submission.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Carol, 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 was the second on record thus necessitating the issuance of a Dangerous Dog Order. The Tribunal was not presented with any evidence that Carol was acting in self-defense.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.   Mr. Rexho was walking his dog Rex on leash near Casa Loma. He encountered Carol being walked on leash by Mr. Marks and his wife Mary Bicos both of whom were friends and neighbors of the owner Danielle Wang.

2.   Mr. Rexho asked them if the dog was friendly and was told that she sometimes “gets agitated” or  “acts funny” with other dogs..  At  this time the two dogs were already sniffing each other calmly,  when suddenly Carol attacked and bit Rex, injuring his shoulder.

3.   Mr. Rexho believed that Mr. Marks and Ms. Bicos were at fault, in that they did not explicitly indicate that Carol could be aggressive or dangerous.

4.   Mr. Marks and Ms. Bicos believed that Mr. Rexho was at fault for allowing Rex to go up to Carol after being told that Carol “gets agitated”.

5.   Mr. Rexho, upon learning Mr. Marks and Ms. Bicos were not Carol’s owners, asked to be taken to see the owner so he could check Carol’s vaccination status.

6.   En route to the owner’s home, Mr. Rexho felt that he was being threatened by Mr. Marks and warned against reporting the incident.

7.   The Tribunal heard that Carol already had a written warning from the City for a previous biting incident.

8.  The Tribunal heard that Ms. Wang had asked anyone walking her dog to keep Carol away from other dogs due to this previous bite incident. Ms. Bicos and Mr. Marks did not heed this advice.

9.   Rex needed veterinary care from the attack. There was some discussion about the severity of Rex’s injury but, for purposes of this matter, it was a moot point as regardless of the severity the fact it was the second dangerous act on record necessitated the Dangerous Dog order.

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 July 28, 2022, Appeal DDRT2022-15.