Item - 2023.DG2.2

The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal:

1. Rescinded the determination of a dangerous dog and exempted the Applicant from compliance with the Dangerous Dog Order issued August 20, 2022, and directed that the Tribunal forward the reasons for this decision to Lori Allan 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, Lori Allan and the Animal Care and the Control Officer, Julia Guerrieri. In addition, the Tribunal was provided with copies of the occurrence report from the University of Toronto Campus Police, as the incident was on the property of the University’s Scarborough Campus, and the Toronto Police Service’s Occurrence and Motor Vehicle Collision Report. The victim, Allan Mills, was not able to testify for health reasons. Finally, the victim’s wife, Maria Sparks, who was not present when the injury to her life partner Allan Mills took place, submitted written documentation regarding the impact of the incident on her husband Allan Mills.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Cody, the dog in question. However, the Tribunal also determined, by unanimous decision, that the dangerous act was not severe. The City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 349, Section 15 states that the dangerous act must be severe (rather than the injuries sustained) as follows:

B. Where the Executive Director has reason to believe that a dog has engaged in a dangerous act against a person or domestic animal, an officer may:

(1) Where the dangerous act is the first on record with the City, serve the owner of the dog with a written warning.

(2) Despite Section B(1), if it is the officer’s opinion that the dangerous act is severe, determine the dog to be a dangerous dog and serve the owner of the dog with an order to comply with the requirements for owners of a dangerous dog under section 349-15.1. [emphasis added]

The Tribunal decided that although the injuries to Mr. Mills were severe, given that there was insufficient evidence to establish that physical contact was made, the act of barking and running after Mr. Mills was not severe.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1. Mr. Mills was riding his E-bike along a rough, bumpy, and uneven trail.

2. Ms. Allan had been down by the creek with her dog Cody, who was off leash.

3. When they returned to the trail, Cody started to bark and chase after Mr. Mills while he was riding his E-bike.

4. Ms. Allan observed Mr. Mills travelling at a “fair speed” on the E-bike.

5. Cody was 15 – 20 feet behind Mr. Mills, and then Mr. Mills fell off his E-bike, and Ms. Allan heard a “thud.”

6. Mr. Mills was seriously injured and unconscious.

7. The only witness present was Ms. Allan.

8. Ms. Allan subsequently called 9-1-1 and remained at the scene of the incident.

9. The occurrence reports from the Toronto Police Service and the University of Toronto’s Campus Police demonstrated that there was no indication of Cody making any contact with Mr. Mills and there was no indication or evidence that there was a bite, respectively.

10.  There was insufficient evidence to establish that Cody made any physical contact with Mr. Mills, or the E-bike.

Based on the evidence and for the reasons above, the Tribunal rescinds by a unanimous decision, the Dangerous Dog Order.

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued, August 20, 2022, Appeal DDRT2023-02.