Item - 2023.DG2.1

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 Florence Liberski and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before March 10, 2023.

On February 28, 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, Florence Liberski, and the victim dog owner, Monique Mascoll, as well as the Animal Care and Control Officer, Julia Guerrieri. The Tribunal also viewed a video taken shortly after the incident by Ms. Mascoll and a video and photos provided by Ms. Liberski of some of Kali’s training.

 The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Kali 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 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 Kali was acting in self-defence but agreed with the Animal Care and Control officer that it was not self-defence.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1. Ms. Mascoll was walking her dog Marley near her home when he stopped to defecate.

2. She bent over to pick up after her dog but retained control of her dog by continuing to hold onto the leash.

3. At the same time, Ms. Liberski was walking her dog Kali while she was looking for her earbuds that she dropped the day before.

4. In the process of looking, she dropped Kali’s leash.

5. Kali started to run towards Marley, and Ms. Mascoll, seeing what was happening, picked up Marley in order to prevent him from being attacked.

6. Marley did not bark nor did he provoke Kali.

7. In spite of Ms. Mascoll’s efforts, Kali jumped up and grabbed/bit Marley’s left hind leg and pulled him to the ground.

8. Kali managed to pull flesh off of his left leg.

9. Ms. Liberski pulled Kali away causing Kali to release Marley from his mouth.

10. Ms. Liberski then struggled to regain control of Kali.

11. Marley received serious injuries including deep wounds involving muscle tissue.

 Based on the evidence and for the reasons above, the Tribunal confirms by a unanimous decision, the determination of a dangerous dog.

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued, July 20, 2022, Appeal DDRT2023-01.