Item - 2023.DG5.2

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 Ted Ludzik 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, and appellant Ted Ludzik. Interested parties, Scott Patterson and Wendy Hulton, submitted written arguments. They were unable to appear due to prior commitments, but they were present for the initial hearing before it was adjourned. The investigating Animal Care and Control Officer did not appear as she no longer works for the City of Toronto. Her report was read into the record by Winford Alleyne, a supervisor in the Animal Care and Control area.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Esme 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 Esme was acting in self-defense but rejected it given that he bit once, and then after a short time period, bit again after releasing from the first bite.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1. Esme was walking on a leash being held by his owner Mr. Ted Ludzik near his home.

2. When approached by Scott Patterson and his girlfriend, Wendy Hulton, Mr. Ludzik gave Mr. Patterson permission to pet Esme when asked by Mr. Patterson.

3. Mr. Patterson had interacted positively with Esme in the past.

4. Ms. Hulton walked on ahead with her dog Daisy and was about ten feet away from Mr. Patterson, Mr. Ludzik, and Esme.

5. Mr. Patterson held out his hand for Esme to sniff. At this point in time, Daisy barked and Esme bit Mr. Patterson on the upper arm area causing Mr. Patterson to fall to the ground. Then, Esme bit Mr. Patterson again, this time on his abdomen area.

6. Mr. Ludzik took Mr. Patterson back to his home which was nearby to render first aid.

7. Mr. Patterson submitted photographs of his injuries, along with a medical report to the Animal Care and Control Officer.

8. Since there were two distinct bites with a short time lapse in between, the Animal Care and Control Officer felt that the bites were severe. This was given the totality of the two bites, the medical report, and the photographs of the injuries.

9. Mr. Ludzik felt that Esme was acting in self-defence, as he had been bitten a few times in the past and one of those attacks occurred at virtually the same location as the incident in question. He also indicated that Esme was sensitive to barking, which was a trigger.

10. Mr. Ludzik felt that Esme was reactive, by way of defensive bites, as opposed to aggressive, a view shared by his trainer Mr. Kirkwood.

11. The Tribunal considered self-defence but felt that Esme was not presented with a reasonable threat, when he bit Mr. Patterson, released, and then bit Mr. Patterson again.

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 November 3, 2022, Appeal DDRT2023-14.