Item - 2023.DG7.1

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 Jason Lemos and Marina Serzhan and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before May 26, 2023.

On May 15, 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, and appellants Marina Serzhan and Jason Lemos as well as Animal Care and Control Officer Patrick Palubjak. Written arguments from the victim dog owner James Hong and Interested Party Jayden Halls were read into the record by Winford Alleyne, a supervisor in Animal Services as Mr. Hong and Mr. Hall were unable to appear due to prior commitments.

The Tribunal determined by a unanimous decision, that a dangerous act was committed by Mushroom Boo Boo, 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 not deemed severe, was the second on record therefore necessitating the Dangerous Dog Order. The Tribunal considered whether Mushroom Boo Boo was acting in self-defence.  Upon review of all the evidence, including consideration of the veterinarian’s report and evidence of a broken harness on the victim dog, Halo, the Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s submission that Mushroom Boo Boo acted in self-defence.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence:

1.    Mushroom Boo Boo was walking on a leash in Rean Park but the Owner Marina Serzhan had dropped the leash so the dog was not under her control.

2.    Rean Park is not a designated off-leash park.

3.    Halo was off leash and barked at Mushroom Boo Boo but no contact was made.

4.    Halo did not make any menacing gestures such as growling or showing teeth.

5.    Mushroom Boo Boo chased Halo up the hill.

6.    Mushroom Boo Boo bit Halo on the right thigh and then latched onto his harness breaking it in the process.

7.    Mr. Hong separated the dogs by physically freeing his dog Halo from Mushroom Boo Boo who had grabbed onto Halo’s harness.

8.    Ms. Serzhan did not appear to call her dog off.

9.    Mr. Hong resorted to posting information and a photo he took of Mushroom Boo Boo in the park to see if any dog owner could identify Ms. Serzhan’s dog.

10.  Jayden Halls responded that he recognized Mushroom Boo Boo and its owner as it was the same dog that had bitten his dog about 6 months before the current incident and he knew a written warning had been issued to Ms. Serzhan for Mushroom Boo Boo.

11.  Mr. Hong reported the attack on his dog to Animal Services and provided a veterinarian report and pictures of Halo’s injuries.

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 19, 2022, Appeal DDRT2023-12.