Item - 2026.DG34.1
Tracking Status
- This item was considered by Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal on June 17, 2026 and was adopted with amendments.
DG34.1 - Jennifer Davidson - Appeal DDRT2023-07
- Decision Type:
- ACTION
- Status:
- Amended
- Wards:
- All
Panel Decision
The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal:
1. Granted the City's motion and declined to hear the appeal on the basis that the order at issue is spent and thus there is no longer an order capable of confirmation or rescission with written reasons to follow.
Origin
Summary
Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued July 26, 2022, Appeal DDRT2023-07.
Background Information
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/dg/bgrd/backgroundfile-286887.pdf
(October 11, 2022) Dangerous Dog Order
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/dg/bgrd/backgroundfile-286888.pdf
(May 9, 2024) Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal Written Decision (Item DG19.1)
(June 7, 2024) Request for Review from Jennifer Friedman, Canada's Animal Lawyer
(September 11, 2024) Request for Review Decision by Member Nigel Waterman, Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal
(July 2, 2026) Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal Written Decision DDRT2023-07
Communications
(March 10, 2023) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG19.1.2)
(March 21, 2023) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG19.1.3)
(September 27, 2023) Tribunal disclosure from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG19.1.4)
(October 5, 2023) Tribunal disclosure from Municipal Licensing and Standards (DG.Main.DG19.1.5)
(October 10, 2023) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG19.1.6)
(October 8, 2024) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG32.1.7)
(October 28, 2024) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG32.1.8)
(November 26, 2024) E-mail from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.Main.DG32.1.9)
(April 3, 2025) Tribunal disclosure from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.Main.DG32.1.10)
(April 4, 2025) Tribunal disclosure from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG32.1.11)
(April 8, 2025) E-mail from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.Main.DG32.1.12)
(January 27, 2026) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG32.1.13)
(January 27, 2026) E-mail from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.Main.DG32.1.14)
(February 6, 2026) Tribunal disclosure from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.Main.DG32.1.15)
(February 12, 2026) E-mail from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.New)
(February 12, 2026) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.New)
(February 13, 2026) E-mail from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.New)
(February 13, 2026) E-mail from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.New)
(March 12, 2026) Letter from Molly Lowson, Lawyer, City of Toronto (DG.Main.DG34.1.1)
(June 1, 2026) Letter from Jennifer Friedman, Barrister and Solicitor, Canada's Animal Lawyer on behalf of Jennifer Davidson (DG.Main.DG34.1.2)
(June 11, 2026) E-mail from Email from J. Friedman (June 11, 2026) (DG.Main.DG34.1.3)
(June 11, 2026) Tribunal disclosure from Disclosure J. Friedman (DG.Main.DG34.1.4)
Speakers
Molly Lowson, Councel, City of Toronto
Motions
At 11:06 a.m. - That the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal recess its public session and meet in closed session to deliberate in private.
12:32 p.m. - That the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal reconvene in public session.
That the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal:
1. Grants the City's motion and declines to hear the appeal on the basis that the order at issue is spent and thus there is no longer an order capable of confirmation or rescission with written reasons to follow.