Item - 2023.DG4.1

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 Vince Ruffolo and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before April 19, 2023.

On April 4, 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 Request for Review. The Tribunal considered oral and written arguments from the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, the dog owner’s representative Cindy Johnson, the dog owner Vince Ruffolo and Interested Parties, Cybill Wong, Lawrence and Ileina Kuo and Chris Vopni. The Animal Care and Control Officer, Jennifer Strong, was not present as she no longer works for the City, but her written testimony was read into the record by Winford Alleyne a manager in the Animal Care and Control area. Both Lawrence and Ileana Kuo testified that the Ruffalo’s dog, Joey, had attacked their dog, Oakley, previous to this incident resulting in a written warning to Mr. Ruffalo. Written documentation in the form of references for Joey were also provided in the disclosure package. The Tribunal also reviewed videos provided by Mr. Ruffalo.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by the dog in question named Joey. 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 dangerous act on record, thus necessitating the Dangerous Dog Order. The Tribunal considered whether Joey was acting in self-defense but concluded that he was not.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.    Joey, the subject dog, bolted from his house and ran to the sidewalk.

2.    Ms. Wong testified he knocked her over and jumped over her dog, Mawi.

3.    Ms. Wong provided evidence of injuries to her knees.

4.    Mr. Vopni testified he did not see Ms. Wong fall but he felt concerned enough about her wellbeing to check to see if Ms. Wong was okay after the incident.

5.    Although there were no bites, Joey’s actions constituted an act of menacing behaviour, necessitating a Dangerous Dog Order under Section 349 as it was the second dangerous act on record.

6.    Adriano Ruffolo, son of the dog owner ran from the house and took control of Joey after the incident keeping Joey away from Ms. Wong.

7.    A video submitted by Mr. Ruffolo was incomplete, providing a recording that started only after the jumping incident, so it did not provide any direct evidence of the dangerous act.

8.    Joey’s attack on the Kuo’s dog Oakley took place a month and a half before the interaction with Ms. Wong and was also in the vicinity of the Ruffalo home.

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

In accordance with Section 21 of the Rules of Procedure, the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal has granted a request for review and has ordered a review hearing to hear appeal DDRT2022-08 in whole.