Item - 2023.DG1.1

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 LaToya James and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before February 15, 2023.

On January 31, 2023, 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, the appellant dog owner, Latoya James and Andre March her cousin in law who was walking the subject dog Raiden at the time of the incident. The Animal Care and Control Officer, Jodi Savage, was not present as she no longer works for the City of Toronto, but her written testimony was read into the record by Winford Alleyne a supervisor in Animal Services. Written documentation was provided in the disclosure package from the victim dog owner Angela Lee. Unfortunately, she was unable to testify orally as she passed away in the time between the incident and the hearing.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Raiden 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 considered whether Raiden was acting in self-defense but concluded that the dangerous act was unprovoked.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.    Ms. Lee was walking her leashed dog Kiyo on the sidewalk on the north side of Neptune Dr. near her home.

2.    Mr. Marsh was walking Raiden on a leash and approached Ms. Lee and her dog from behind.

3.    Ms. Lee was concerned as she felt from previous experience that Raiden was aggressive so she started to walk more quickly to increase the distance between the two dogs.

4.    Raiden pulled on his leash and his leash snapped.

5.    Mr. Marsh yelled a warning but by the time Ms. Lee was able to turn around Raiden already had Kiyo in his mouth.

6.    Mr. Marsh pulled Kiyo from Rayden’s mouth and took Raiden back to Ms. James’s apartment. Ms. James was not home as she was at work at the time of the attack                          

7.    He returned to offer what assistance he could but Ms. Lee had already made arrangements to have Kiyo taken to a veterinary clinic as her dog was in immediate need of medical assistance.

8.    The veterinarians at Animal Partners indicated the injuries were so severe that Kiyo had to be euthanized.

9.    Ms. Lee was able to identify Raiden as the attacking dog.

10.  Security for the apartment complex said there was a video but failed to produce one even after several requests.

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 15, 2022, Appeal DDRT2022-13.