Item - 2023.DG5.1

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 Paisley Anne Wong-Nabua and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before May 5, 2023.

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 Animal Care and Control Officer Julia Guerriera and the appellant Paisley Anne Wong Nabua. Oral evidence was provided by the appellant’s mother, Annabelle Nabua who witnessed the incident. The interested party, Michelle Simard had her written statement read into the record by the City as she was unable to attend for medical reasons

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Diggy, 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 the first on record, was severe, therefore necessitating the Dangerous Dog Order. The Tribunal considered whether Diggy was acting in self-defense, but agreed that even if that was the case, the response was out of proportion to any perceived threat.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1. Diggy was on a leash being held by Annabella Nabua on the sidewalk.

2. When Ms. Simard with her two dogs Oliver and Bella approached, Ms. Annabella Nabua pulled Diggy off the sidewalk and held him by his leash and his collar near the curb.

3. Ms. Simard asked if it was safe to pass and received an answer in the affirmative.

4. As she approached closely, she complimented Ms. Nabua for moving Diggy off the sidewalk to let her pass with her dogs.

5. Ms. Nabua testified that one of Ms. Simard’s dogs, Oliver, “provoked “Diggy by growling and lunging but admitted there was no contact.

6. Ms. Simard’s written statement indicated Oliver was injured as a result of his ending up in Diggy’s mouth.

7. Ms. Nabua said everything happened so quickly she did not see this.

8. She said Oliver ran into the neighbor’s back yard but did not hear any confrontation even though the neighbor’s dogs were in the yard.

9. She suggested that Oliver might have been injured in the yard but presented no evidence to this. In fact, the neighbor later reported to Ms. Paisley Anne Wong Nabua that he did not see or hear any interaction in his yard.

10. Ms. Simard took Oliver to a veterinary emergency clinic and he was seen in less than an hour after being injured.

11. The attending veterinarian’s report indicated the injuries were severe.

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, August 21, 2022, Appeal DDRT2023-04.