Committee offers dogs their day in court
Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal has final word on ‘dangerous’ designations
It had the qualities of high courtroom drama.
One witness described the accused as a sweetheart. The victim characterized him as a danger to the public and shouted “liar” from the public gallery after she was accused of trying to hit him.
The accused had four legs and one name — Bruno. And on Wednesday, his status as a dangerous dog was reaffirmed after his owner argued to have the designation lifted, to no avail.
The city’s Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal had ruled against him.
“I just want to thank Jesus, I do,” said the victim, Ana Maria Ramos, who was bitten by Bruno on both hands a little over a year ago, and still has limited movement in one of her fingers as a result.
“I’m blissful,” Ramos said. “It’s not to punish anybody. It’s for the safety of the dog, of (the owner) and the public.”
Bruno’s owner, Sarah Soobram, testified at the tribunal on Tuesday that Ramos was aggressive towards her dog, first shouting at him to “shut up” and, after he bit her finger, raising her hand to strike him. She said that’s when Bruno bit Ramos again, leaving five puncture wounds in her wrist.
“Bruno is a sweetheart. He’s full of energy. He loves everybody, he’s like a little teddy bear,” Soobram testified.
“She wouldn’t have been bit on the wrist if she hadn’t tried to strike him.”
The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal meets monthly at North York Civic Centre and has Toronto’s final word on dangerous dog designations. It hears pleas from owners who believe their dogs were wrongly labelled and from victims who want to see the dogs that bit them muzzled.
Dangerous dog designations are issued by the city against canines that act aggressively toward humans or other animals.
Dogs so designated must be muzzled at all times in public, cannot enter leashfree areas of the city, must wear a dangerous dog tag and be identified with a microchip. The dog must receive socialization and obedience training within 90 days of the date of the order and the owner must provide proof of compliance.
Dogs that bite can sometimes avoid
being designated as dangerous if they acted in self-defence.
Ramos, a city of Toronto cleaner on medical leave, occasionally walks dogs for neighbours in her building.
Soobram, a dental hygienist, said Ramos had walked her dog once before and had come around a second time as planned, but reacted badly when she arrived in Soobram’s apartment to find Bruno barking loudly.
Soobram was having trouble controlling the dog, who stands about three feel tall and weighs about 75 pounds. He is half Rottweiler, half German shepherd, making him extremely territorial, according to a dog trainer who testified on behalf of Soobram and Bruno.
Soobram said she warned Ramos to back away, but Ramos approached instead and put her hand in Bruno’s face. That, she said, was when he responded — defensively.
While city bylaws make allowances for dogs that attack in self-defence, the city’s animal services investigator decided that even had Bruno been defending himself, Ramos’s wounds were so serious that the dangerous dog label had to be applied.
Soobram initially appealed the order and won, after Bruno’s trainer argued in the dog’s defence, but the city applied to have it reinstated, and on Tuesday, the city prevailed.
“The city’s position is that in certain situations, even where a dog may have acted in self-defence, the severity of the dog’s response means that an order to comply is proper to protect the public and other animals,” read a statement submitted to the tribunal by the city.
“In particular, the city respectfully submits that the severity of the response was completely out of proportion to the nature of the provocation.”
Ramos’s right wrist had five deep punctures and one smaller puncture and her left hand had a deep tear along one finger.
It wasn’t the first time Bruno had bitten a person.
“I’m definitely disappointed,” Soobram said after the ruling. She had hired a lawyer to represent her at the tribunal and is fighting a lawsuit filed against her by Ramos.
Soobram testified at the tribunal that Ramos tried to get her to pay for damages without going through the proper channels, asking her for $400 within hours of the incident happening. They even arranged a payment schedule together.
Ramos, who owns three dogs herself, said outside the tribunal that she was disoriented from the attack, and while she didn’t want to report Bruno because she was afraid he would be put down, she also thought it was fair to be compensated for her pain and suffering.
“I thought he was going to bite my finger off,” she said.