Item - 2023.DG2.3

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 Rescinded the determination of a dangerous dog and exempted the Applicant from compliance with the Dangerous Dog Order issued August 21, 2022, and directed that the Tribunal forward the reasons for this decision to Tabi Salimi and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before March 10, 2023.

On February 23, 2023, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal reserved its decision and directed that the Tribunal forward its decision and reasons to Tabi Salimi 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, Tabi Salimi, and the Animal Care and Control Officer, Julia Guerreiri. Ms. Salimi was represented by a licensed Paralegal, Ms. Cassandra Fragoso. Oral evidence was provided by Andrew McClean, the fiancée of Ms. Salimi, and neighbors Valerie Hodgins and Michael Distasi. The victim, Joan McCann did not appear but did provide a written statement.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Mylo, 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 Ms. McCann were severe, the Tribunal could not determine if the actions of Mylo were severe, given there was conflicting evidence regarding whether any contact was made.

In addition, the Tribunal felt there were some issues of procedural fairness. These issues included the timing of serving the Dangerous Dog Order, which was noted as 11:05 AM, but Ms.Guerrieri noted that she arrived in front of Ms. Salimi’s building and observed her at 11:20 AM, and obtained the first and only statement from Ms. Salimi. Further, Ms. Guerrieri did not interview any of the independent witnesses who saw the incident. Finally, Ms. Guerreri made no attempt to reconcile the medical report with the undated photographs provided by Ms. McCann of injuries to the right side of her body, when the medical reports from the hospital related to injuries on the left side.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1. Ms. McCann was out walking behind her building when she encountered Mylo and two other dogs. All three dogs were off leash but were with their owners.

2. The dogs approached Ms. McCann and she said “all the dogs want to say hi to me.”

3. Several minutes later, Ms. McCann returned from her walk.

4. Mylo, the offending dog, approached her and jumped up.

5. There was conflicting evidence as to whether there was any physical contact made by Mylo to Ms. McCann.

6. Ms. McCann took a step back when Mylo jumped up.

7. Ms. McCann appeared to have lost her balance in taking a step back, and subsequently fell, injuring herself.

8. Ms. Salimi was right behind Mylo and was there within seconds of the interaction.

9. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Mylo stood on top of Ms. McCann’s chest.

10. Ms. McCann indicated to Ms. Salimi that she was out for the first time during her rehabilitation for prior injuries.

11. Mr. Distasi called an ambulance and she was transported to the hospital where she received medical attention for injuries to her left side.

12. Undated photographs were submitted by Ms. McCann, which showed injuries to her right side, while the medical report from the hospital referenced injuries on her left side.

13. There was insufficient evidence to confirm that Mylo made contact with Ms. McCann during their second interaction.

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 21, 2022, Appeal DDRT2023-03.