Item - 2021.DG15.3

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 Douglas Bassett and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards on or before March 5, 2021.

On February 22, 2021, 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 Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Animal Care and Control Officer Jodi Savage, the Appellant Douglas Bassett and his wife Susan, their housekeeper, Divina Mendosa, and dog walker Jennifer Johnston as well as an Interested Party, namely the victim dog owner Wynn Theriault, In addition, the Tribunal considered several “character references” for the subject dog Network from neighbours, the dog’s veterinarian and the dog’s trainer.

The Tribunal determined that a dangerous act occurred and was committed by Network the dog in question. Further it 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 unprovoked and not in self-defence and was the second dangerous act on record.

The Tribunal accepts the following evidence.

1. Network was being walked by Ms. Mendosa on her daily 1 p.m. walk. As they passed the residence of Ms. Theriault Network went up two steps into the property and behind a bush. There was a dog that yelped and Ms. Mendosa pulled Network back onto the sidewalk and reprimanded Network. Seeing no other dog, they continued on their way.
2. Ms. Theriault heard the yelp and immediately ran over and saw her dog shaking and coming toward her. She examined her dog and found her side wet which she felt was from another dog’s saliva. Her dog was trembling. She could not find any injuries but took her dog to the veterinarian that afternoon and he confirmed there were no injuries.
3. Network’s dangerous act was unprovoked as Ms. Theriault’s dog was quietly eating grass on her own property.
4. There were previous documented incidents on record for Network with the City including menacing behaviour.
5. Mr. Bassett’s professional dog walker Jennifer Johnston, who walks Network nine times per week said that this routine was setup as Mr. Bassett was occasionally having trouble managing Network due to Mr. Bassett’s age. Ms. Johnston suggested they would be willing to enter into an undertaking that Mr. Bassett would not walk his dog off the property in return for the order being rescinded. The Tribunal explained that this was not possible as the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to either confirming or rescinding the order and had no power to attach a condition to the order.
 

Based on the evidence and for the reasons above, the Tribunal unanimously confirms the determination of the Dangerous Dog Order.

Appeal of Dangerous Dog Order issued, September 29, 2020, Appeal DDRT2021-05.