ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE KING (CITY OF TORONTO)
— AND —
EDGAR LAVERGNE
Before Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks
Heard on April 27, 2026 and June 8, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 22, 2026
P. Hooshman ……………………………………………Counsel for the Prosecution
E. Lavergne…………………………………………………………Defendant (Not Present)
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BROOKS:
1I conducted this ex parte Part III trial under the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 349-15, Animals.
2The defendant, Edgar Lavergne, was charged as follows:
(i) On or about the 14th of July 14, 2025, at the sidewalk in front of 5096 Dundas Avenue West in the City of Toronto did commit the offence and failed to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from engaging in a dangerous act, contrary to the City of Toronto Municipal Code, as amended, Chapter 349, Section 15A.
3A plea of not guilty was entered by the court on behalf of the defendant, Edgar Lavergne, who was not present either in the court room or by video.
4It should be noted that the defendant has never appeared in court for this matter. This is the third time that this matter has been before the court. The matter was first before the court on January 6, 2026. I made an exclusion order with respect to the witnesses at the outset of this ex parte trial.
5I am satisfied that this is a strict liability offence.
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE:
6The Prosecutor provided a certified copy of City of Toronto, Chapter 349, Section 15A, Animals bylaw. The last date is July 17, 2024. Section 15A states that “Dogs that have bitten, attacked or pose a menace, every owner of a dog shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from engaging in a dangerous act.”
7In addition, the Prosecutor provided the Evidence Act Notice dated November 21, 2025, which was mailed or sent by courier to the defendant, Edgar Lavergne, on December 3, 2025. This Evidence Act Notice was sent by Shuang Cheng from the Municipal Licencing & Standard Division of the City of Toronto. The Evidence Act Notice was mailed to the defendant’s address at 57 Mabelle Avenue Unit 1403 Toronto, Ontario M9A 4Y5. The Evidence Act Notice includes a list of documentary evidence and the charge which is failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from engaging in dangerous acts contrary to Chapter 349 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Section 349-15A. The court marked the Evidence Act Notice, the documentary evidence and the summons as Exhibit 1.
8The Prosecutor also presented photos (Exhibit 2) of the July 14, 2025 attack of the small dog by the large dog which were provided by Dennis Dejong, one of the witnesses; a Toronto Police Services report submitted on July 15, 2026 about the incident (Exhibit 3); an expired Pet Licence Certificate issued on March 21, 2023 to the defendant by Toronto Animal Services (Exhibit 4) and a Written Warning issued by Toronto Animal Services to the defendant on December 8, 2023 (Exhibit 5).
9The Prosecutor relied on the testimonies of four witnesses which included Olena Golub, the owner of the dog that was attacked and killed; Alicia Arcand, the owner of a dog grooming business at 5094 Dundas Street West in the shopping plaza where the attack occurred and a witness to the attack; Dennis Jeong, the owner of Ikkoi Japanese Cuisine, an Asian restaurant at 5084 Dundas Street West, which is located in the same shopping plaza, and who has a video of the attack; and Ashraf Soliman, a pharmacist who works in the Dunbloor Medical Pharmacy at 5115 Dundas Street West. He testified that he knows the defendant.
10The only certified evidence before the court has been provided by the Prosecutor, who submitted a certified copy of the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 349, Animals. Under Section 349-1 Definitions “Animal” includes all species of fauna excluding humans, fish and invertebrates.
Testimony of Olena Golub
11Olena Golub testified that she drove to her work with her dog, “Lucky” on July 14, 2025 about 5 PM. Her place of employment is Salon Igli at 5092 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke and is located in a shopping plaza. She parked in the parking lot at the shopping plaza, right in front of the salon, took her dog and the dog’s leash from the back seat of her car, started to close the car door and put the leash on her dog.
12She testified that her dog was leashed when she was taking him out of the backseat of her car and that initially her dog was very calm. When her dog saw a larger dog nearby, however, her dog started to bark. She then saw a man who stared at her “in a strange way” and walked around her vehicle and sat down beside the driver’s seat back tire. He then proceeded to remove the leash from his dog and ordered his dog to “pursue” her dog. Ms. Golub testified that when the owner removed his dog’s leash, he “gestured the dog or gave the command to the dog to attack my dog”.
13She tried to lift her dog but the large dog “started tearing my little dog to pieces”. She stated that the owner “didn’t do anything” to stop his dog from attacking her dog. She said, “he was just holding the leash in his hand and did nothing”. She also testified that her dog passed away immediately at the scene of the attack.
14She noted that there were several onlookers and said that she was crying and screaming and asking people to help her. She testified that the owner of the large dog did nothing to stop his dog from attacking her dog and “just left” after his dog had attacked and killed her dog. She asked the people who were observing the incident to stop him and to call the police.
15Ms. Golub testified that she has had her dog for two years. She adopted her dog from the Ukraine as that country was looking for people in other countries to adopt dogs which had been injured because of Russia’s attacks on Ukranine. Lucky was a Maltipoo.
16The Prosecutor asked Ms. Golub what injuries she had sustained from the attack. Ms. Golub testified that her fingers had been “dislocated” during the attack and that both her hands were injured. As a result, she could not work for a month because of her injuries.
17Ms. Golub testified that the owner of the sushi bar (Ikkoi), a Japanese cuisine restaurant, in the shopping plaza provided a video to her of the attack of her dog by the larger dog and that she provided it to the police officer who arrived at the scene of the incident. Ms. Golub also has photographs of the owner of the large dog as well as the large dog that attacked and killed her dog from her “neighbour” at the shopping plaza. These photos that were provided to Ms. Golub by Mr. Jeong were entered as Exhibit 2. Ms. Golub testified that she would be able to identify the owner of the large dog if she saw him.
18Ms. Golub stated that within one to two hours after the attack she was able to talk to a police officer who recorded her account of the attack on video. She also testified that she was able to obtain a video of the incident from the owner of the Ikkoi, a Japanese cuisine restaurant at 5084 Dundas Street West, which is located in the same shopping plaza as her business. She gave the video to the officer to whom she spoke.
19Ms. Golub described the dog that attacked her dog as medium sized and red, yellow or a “different orange” in colour. The Prosecutor showed Ms. Golub photographs of Edgar Lavergne and his dog and asked Ms. Golub whether this was the owner of the dog and the dog that attacked her dog. Ms. Golub confirmed these photos were photos of the dog which attacked her dog and the dog’s owner.
Testimony of Dennis Jeong
20Dennis Jeong, the owner of Ikkoi, a Japanese cuisine restaurant, at 5084 Dundas Street West in the same shopping plaza, testified that he was busy at work on July 14, 2025, the day the incident took place. His CCTV camera at the restaurant, however, captured the incident by video in the parking lot of the shopping plaza. The video shows a man unleashing his dog and his larger dog attacking Ms. Golub’s smaller dog. Mr. Jeong told the court that Ms. Golub had asked him for his restaurant’s video footage at the time the July 14 incident took place. Mr. Jeong did not witness the incident himself.
21Dennis Dejong testified that he had not made any changes to the video that was produced by his CCTV camera on July 14, 2025. He was uncertain whether he ever provided the Prosecutor with the video but he did state that he provided the court with four photographs taken from this video from his telephone, which he identified, and they were marked as Exhibit 2.
Testimony of Alicia Arcand
22Alicia Arcand testified that she owns a dog daycare and grooming business and that her business is located in the same shopping plaza at 5094 Dundas Street West. She was at her business on July 14, 2025, the day the alleged incident occurred.
23She testified that she heard a woman scream as well as dogs yelping and snarling on July 14, 2025. The screaming woman was standing behind a vehicle in front of the restaurant next to her store. She ran out to see if she could help and saw a large dog with a “very small white dog” in its mouth.
24She testified that she could hear “the little dog crying” and that “she felt she had to intervene”. There were about a dozen people watching but no one was near either dog. She grabbed the attacking dog by the back of the neck so that his front paws were off the ground. She said the attacking dog “still did not let the little dog go”. At that point, however, she noted that the small dog was dead. She gave the large dog a violent shake and it let go of the little dog.
25The owner of the large dog was yelling at her not to touch his dog, approached a bit closer to her and was “swiping his hands” at her.
26Ms. Arcand testified that the owner of the attacking dog was standing in her part of the parking lot about 10 or 15 feet away from the altercation, “kicking in the air” and seemed to be “trying to kick his dog but his dog was 15 feet away from him”.
27The large dog wiggled out of his collar and ran away. The owner then ran after his dog. She told the owner of the large dog that he could not run away as the police had been called.
28She wrapped the small dog in a blanket and brought him into her dog grooming store. She believes that another man called the police at her request. She then spoke to the police about what happened. She also testified that the people who had observed the incident in the parking lot had left.
Testimony of Ashraf Soliman
29Ashraf Soliman is a pharmacist who works at the Dunbloor Medical Pharmacy at 5115 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke. He testified that he could not remember the date of the incident. He could, however, recall someone screaming for help. Mr. Soliman went out outside his pharmacy, and on the other side of Dundas Street West, he saw a large or medium sized dog bite a very small dog which was “ almost dead”. Mr. Soliman stated that the large dog was unleashed and attacked the small dog three times. Mr. Soliman testified that after the large dog bit the small dog and killed it, the large dog ran around the area to the traffic light, which is at the intersection of Michael Power and Dundas, and then came back and repeated the same process by biting the small dog again and leaving it on the ground. The woman who owned the small dog kept screaming. He also said that the owner of the large dog tried to control his dog but he was unable to do so and no one could catch the large dog.
30Mr. Soliman testified that he knows the defendant as the defendant has come to his pharmacy on previous occasions. He confirmed that the owner of the large dog whom he saw that day was Edgar Lavergne. Mr. Soliman also told the officer who came to the pharmacy where Mr. Soliman works that he knew the owner of the large dog and that he lived in the neighbourhood. Mr. Soliman testified that he (Mr. Soliman) has lived in the neighbourhood for 20 years.
Testimony of Officer Patrick Palubjak
31Officer Patrick Palubjak, badge number 193, testified that he is a provincial offences officer and has worked for the City of Toronto in this capacity for over 28 years. He investigated the July 14, 2025 incident. He asked for permission to consult his notes and the court gave him permission to do so to refresh his memory.
32Officer Palubjak stated that the City of Toronto had received a complaint regarding a dog bite incident on July 16, 2025. He then spoke to Mike Czarnota, the Toronto Police Services investigating officer, who sent Officer Palubjak a copy of the Toronto Police Services report. This report, which Officer Palubjak reviewed on July 22, 2025, identified the offending dog owner, Edgar Lavergne. This report, which was marked as Exhibit 3, also identified a witness, Alicia Arcand. The Officer made several attempts to reach Olena Golub about the July 14, 2025 incident and was then able to speak with her on July 21, 2025. He confirmed that Olena Golub was the owner of the dog which was killed at approximately 5:30 PM on July 14, 2025 at 5092 Dundas Street West. He noted that Olena Golub does not speak English and so he called her back with a Ukrainian interpreter. (It should be noted that although the Officer stated that he called Ms. Golub back with a Ukrainian interpreter, Ms. Golub’s speaks Russian.) He asked Ms. Golub for details about the incident as well as the video and photos of the offending dog.
33Officer Palubjak reviewed the Toronto Police Services report dated July 15, 2025 about the incident and spoke to the investigating officer, Mike Czarnota, badge number 10646. Mr. Czarnota sent Officer Palubjak a copy of the Toronto Police Services report which Officer Palubjak reviewed on July 22, 2025. This report identified the owner of the large dog as Edgar Lavergne. The report also provided Officer Palubjak with Edgar Lavergne’s address. He noted that one of the other witnesses, Alicia Arcand, was named in the police report. Officer Palubjak also received emails about the July 14, 2025 incident from Bertha Aiello who claimed to be a friend of Olena Golub. The Prosecutor told the court that this Toronto Police Services report was included in the Evidence Act Notice that had been marked as Exhibit 1.
34Officer Palubjak was away for several weeks and did not have an opportunity to contact the other witnesses. In his absence, the file was reassigned to Officer Sabrina Parson.
Testimony of Officer Sabrina Parson
35Officer Sabrina Parson, badge number 6474, testified that she is employed by the City of Toronto as an Animal Control Officer. She noted that this case was reassigned to her on August 5, 2025 from Officer Patrick Palubjak. She asked the court for permission to use her notes and the court granted her permission to consult her notes to refresh her memory.
36She testified that she reached out to the purported offending dog owner, who had already been identified as such by Officer Palubjak’s investigation, and asked him to surrender his dog to Toronto Animal Services. She stated that Mr. Lavergne reacted by using “‘colourful language” and refused to hand over his dog. She told the defendant that she would most likely pursue charges. Officer Parson told the Prosecutor that she had already determined that Mr. Lavergne’s dog was a “dangerous dog” because he had killed another dog.
37When Officer Parson spoke to Edgar Lavergne by phone she confirmed that the person she called was Edgar Lavergne by asking the name of the person to whom she spoke. She also asked him whether he owned “Buddy”. Mr. Lavergne confirmed that he owned Buddy and proceeded to described Buddy. The Officer stated that Mr. Lavergne’s description matched the registration information that Toronto Police Services had. Officer Parson gave Mr. Lavergne a full caution.
38Officer Parson spoke to two of the witnesses including Alicia Arcand, the owner of the dog day care and grooming business and Ashraf Soliman, the pharmacist at the Dunbloor Medical Pharmacy. Ms. Arcand gave the Officer a full description of the attack that she witnessed, and how she pulled the large dog away from the small dog while the owner just stood by and watched. Officer Parson tried to speak to Dennis Dejong, the Japanese restaurant owner, but she was unable to reach him. When she spoke to Mr. Soliman, he described the two dogs and the attack of the large dog on the small dog but did not say anything about knowing the owner of the large dog. Officer Parson tried to contact Olena Golub, the small dog’s owner, but never heard back from her. The Officer stated that Mr. Lavergne was then charged with Chapter 249-15(A), “fail to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent a dog from engaging in a dangerous act”.
39Officer Parson then testified that Mr. Lavergne had registered his dog in March 2023 but this registration expired in March 2024. The information on the pet licence indicates that Buddy was a three-year-old American Bulldog and Doberman Pincher mix. This expired pet licence was entered as Exhibit 4.
40The Officer testified that Mr. Lavergne’s dog has a long history of aggressive attacks and told the court that there were six incidents of Mr. Lavergne’s dog attacking another dog or a person prior to the July 14, 2025 incident. In addition to attacking other dogs, Mr. Lavergne’s dog has bitten two people. She stated that a written warning had been issued to Mr. Lavergne for an incident on August 4, 2023. The Prosecutor then showed the court the written warning that Mr. Lavergne had received and asked that it be marked as Exhibit 5. The Officer stated that written warnings had not be issued for the other five incidents.
Prosecutor’s Submissions
41The Prosecutor emphasized that under the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 349, Section 15A, that on July 14, 2025 the defendant’s dog had engaged in a dangerous act by attacking and killing Ms. Golub’s dog.
42She stated that Ms. Golub had stepped out of her car and had taken her small dog out of the back seat. Her small dog was then aggressively attacked and killed by a much larger dog whose owner had taken his dog off its leash and made no effort to stop his dog from attacking the small dog.
43She described how Alicia Arcand, the dog grooming businesswoman, had witnessed the attack and tried to stop the large dog from attacking the smaller dog.
44The Prosecutor pointed to the images on the video and in the photographs of the owner walking with his unleashed dog.
45The Prosecutor referred to Mr. Soliman, the pharmacist at the Dunbloor Medical Pharmacy, who knows Edgar Lavergne, the owner of the large dog and who saw the large dog attack the small dog. She emphasized that Edgar Lavergne is a client of the Dunbloor Medical Pharmacy and, therefore, Mr. Soliman, the pharmacist, is very familiar with the defendant.
46She noted that as a result of Mr. Lavergne’s actions, Mr. Golub’s dog died on July 14, 2025 and Ms. Golub had injuries because of the dog attack.
47She summarized the testimonies of Officer Palubjak and Officer Parson who testimonies corroborate the testimonies of the civilian witnesses.
48The Prosecutor concluded her submission by emphasizing that all the essential elements of the defence had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. She also told the court that Mr. Lavergne’s dog had been “put down.”
ANALYSIS:
ISSUES:
49The following are the relevant issues in this matter:
(i) Has the identity of the defendant been established?
(ii) Has the Prosecutor established that Chapter 349, Animals, Section 15A of the Toronto Municipal Code applies?
(iii) Has the Prosecutor proven the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt?
Establishing the Identity of the Defendant:
50The identity of the defendant, Edgar Lavergne, can be determined by the collective testimony of the four witnesses, three of which saw the large dog attack the smaller dog while the defendant stood and watched. The identity of the defendant can also be determined by the testimony of the two officers, who investigated the incident. Officer Parson spoke to the defendant during her investigation of the incident.
51Olena Golub, the owner of the small dog, saw the defendant in person when his dog attacked her dog on July 14, 2025. She was then able to confirm that the video footage and the photos provided by Dennis Jeong, the owner of the Japanese cuisine restaurant in the shopping plaza, matched the image of the owner of the large dog.
52Alice Arcand, the owner of the dog grooming salon in the shopping plaza, witnessed the dog attack in the parking lot of the shopping plaza and saw the dog’s owner standing idly by while his dog attacked a much smaller dog. She verified that the man in the photos was the owner of the large dog.
53Ms. Golub saw the defendant in person when the defendant’s dog initially attacked Ms. Golub’s dog. Mr. Soliman saw the defendant at the scene of the incident and witnessed the large dog attacking the small dog three times. All three of them then verified that the man in the photos and in the video which were provided by Dennis Dejong, the Japanese cuisine restaurant owner, was the man who owned the large dog which attacked Ms. Golub’s dog. Mr. Soliman, the pharmacist, who works at the Dunbloor Medical Pharmacy, testified that he heard a woman’s screams, went out to the parking lot of the shopping plaza across the street from where his pharmacy is located and witnessed the large dog attacking the small dog three times. Mr. Soliman testified that the man in the photos was Edgar Lavergne and explained that he was able to recognize Mr. Lavergne because Mr. Lavergne shops in the pharmacy where Mr. Soliman works. In addition, Ms. Golub and Ms. Arcand verified that the man in the photos and on the video was the large dog’s owner as they had witnessed the attack.
54The Toronto Police Services report (GO# TP 2025-1468802), which was marked as Exhibit 3 during the hearing, corroborates the testimonies of the witnesses. The Related Narrative section in the report states that at 5:10 PM on Monday, July 14, 2025 two police officers attended 1403-57 Mabelle Avenue which is where the defendant lives. This section of the Toronto Police Services Report stated that a man in his 70’s with a “medium sized pit bull” had allowed his dog to run around unleashed in the area of 5105 Dundas Street. The report also stated that the off-leash dog attacked a small poodle, which had succumbed to its injuries at the scene of the incident. The report identified this man as Edgar Lavergne. The defendant answered the door when police knocked but police could not see the dog as the defendant closed the door before he came out to the hallway to talk to police. Mr. Lavergne was subsequently put into custody while police investigated and then released with a POA offence notice. Following his release, the police arranged for Toronto Animal Services to come and collect his dog as Mr. Lavergne advised the officers that he could no longer handle it. During the hearing, the Prosecutor advised the court that Mr. Lavergne’s dog had been put down.
55After police officers attended the residence of Mr. Lavergne, they then attended 5105 Dundas Street West as they had received numerous calls about a large dog attacking a small dog and that the small dog was killed by the larger dog. Police met the complainant, Olena Golub, who police described as “visibly distressed” and “crying profusely”. Ms. Golub then told police the same account of her dog being attacked by the larger dog and killed by the larger dog. The Toronto Police Services Report also states that Ms. Golub told police that the defendant made minimal attempts to stop the attack and did not remain on the scene. Police issued Edgar Lavergne a Municipal by-law ticket for having his dog unleased. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Police have confirmed his identity.
Applicability of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 349, Animals, Section 15A:
56The only certified evidence before the court has been provided by the Prosecutor, who submitted a certified copy of the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 349, Animals. Under Section 349-1 Definitions, “Animal” includes all species of fauna excluding humans, fish and invertebrates”.
57The court is of the view that Chapter 349 does apply as the City of Toronto bylaw states that it regulates all “fauna” in the City of Toronto except humans, fish and invertebrates. Chapter 349 specifically refers to dogs and their behaviour and provides provisions outlining how dogs and their owners are to be disciplined if they exhibit aggressive behaviour in public. Chapter 349 refers to dogs in general and provides provisions for addressing any aggressive behaviour.
Have the Actus Reus of the Offence Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?
58In order to determine whether the actus reus of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we need first to determine whether the witnesses’ testimonies are credible. I am relying on R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17 at paragraph 20 when assessing the credibility of the witnesses:
Assessing credibility is not a science. It is very difficult for a trial judge to articulate with precision the complex intermingling of impressions that emerge after watching and listening to witnesses and attempting to reconcile the various versions of events…
59I find the testimonies of the four witnesses to be very credible. Their testimonies were very clear and concise with respect to the details of the incident in question. Ms. Golub was an eyewitness to the attack. Mrs. Arcand and Mr. Soliman were eyewitnesses shortly after the attack started. Mr. Soliman testified that he knows the owner of the large dog because the owner frequents his pharmacy. I accept that the photos and the video that were provided by Mr. Jeong, the Japanese restaurant owner, as accurate depictions of the incident on July 14, 2025 as his CCTV cameras captured the incident in question and provide images of the large dog and his owner.
60The testimonies of Officer Palubjak and Officer Parson support the testimonies of the civilian witnesses as the Officers’ testimonies include many of the same details as those of the witnesses with respect to the July 14, 2025 incident. The Officers, however, could not provide details about the attack of the larger dog on the smaller dog because they investigated the incident several days after the incident took place so their account of the incident is based on their interviews with the three of the four witnesses (Ms. Golub, Ms. Arcand and Mr. Soliman) after the incident. In the case of Officer Parson, she spoke to the defendant as well.
61There is no dispute about the large dog attacking the smaller dog and the outcome i.e. the death of the smaller dog. The owner of the small dog and several other witnesses testified that the larger dog attacked and killed the small dog without any hesitation.
62As such, I am satisfied that the actus reus of the charges before me, namely that the large dog belonging to the defendant attacked and killed the small dog and that defendant not only did not attempt to stop his dog from attacking Ms. Golub’s dog but encouraged and facilitated the attack by taking his dog off leash and moving his dog towards the small dog when he arrived in the shopping plaza parking lot. He then stood idly by and made no attempt to intervene while his larger dog killed the smaller dog and left the parking lot before the police arrived.
63Alice Arcand, the owner of a dog grooming business in the shopping mall where the attack occurred, testified that she heard yelping and snarling and then saw the large dog with the small dog in his mouth.
64Dennis Jeong, the owner of Ikkoi, a Japanese cuisine restaurant in the shopping plaza where the attack occurred, testified that he provided a CCTV video, as well as photos, of the large dog attacking the small dog in front of his restaurant.
65Ashraf Soliman, the pharmacist at the Dunbloor Medical Pharmacy at 5115 Dundas Street West, which is located across the street from the shopping plaza, testified that he heard someone screaming for help and then saw a large dog and a small dog that was “almost dead”. He also testified that he knows Edgar Lavergne, the owner of the large dog, and he identified Edgar Lavergne in the photos of the incident that were presented to the court.
66I have considered the testimonies of Olena Golub, the owner of the small dog that was attacked and of Alicia Arcand, the owner of the dog grooming business in the shopping mall, very carefully. Olena Golub, the owner of the small dog, witnessed the entire attack of the larger dog of her smaller dog as the attack occurred immediately after she parked her car and then took her dog out of the back seat of the car. She also testified that the owner of the large dog took his dog off lease as soon as he arrived in the parking lot and encouraged his dog to attack her dog.
67Alicia Arcand, the owner of a dog grooming business located in the shopping mall, heard snarling and yelping and then saw the small dog, that was “almost dead” in the large dog’s mouth.
68I have also considered the testimonies of Dennis Jeong and Ashraf Solomon and consider them to be credible. Dennis Jeong’s photos of the attack clearly show the large dog attacking the small dog. Ashraf Solmon testified that he saw the large dog attack the small dog three times and he was able to identify the defendant as he is a customer at the pharmacy where he works.
69As such, I am satisfied that the actus reus of the charges before me, namely that the large dog belonging to the defendant attacked and killed the small dog and that defendant not only did not attempt to stop his dog from attacking Ms. Golub’s dog but encouraged and facilitated the attack by taking his dog off leash and moving his dog towards the small dog when he arrived in the shopping plaza parking lot. He then stood idly by while his larger dog killed the smaller dog and left the parking lot before the police arrived.
70The defendant did not participate in this trial although he was on notice of it. As such, he did not offer any due diligence defence.
71As noted in Libman on Regulatory Offences, at page 7-4, in R. v. Burko, 2011 ONSC 479 at paragraph 30, the court explained the operation of the burden of proof for regulatory offences as opposed to criminal offences, in these terms:
…once the actus reus of the offence has been proven, and the onus shifts to the accused to establish a due diligence defence, I cannot see that a W.(D.) analysis is required. In doing so, a trial judge must consider whether defence evidence raises a reasonable doubt, even if it is not believed. However, in the case of a regulatory offence, once the actus reus has been established, and the onus is on the accused to establish a due diligence defence, it is no longer relevant to consider whether the evidence of the accused, even if not believed, raises a reasonable doubt.
72Edgar Lavergne, the defendant, did not appear or testify in court. Moreover, the defendant left the shopping plaza parking lot with his dog, the scene of the incident in question, before the police arrived and did not leave any contact information with the owner of the small dog or any other individual who witnessed the attack by his dog of the small dog.
73The City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 349-15 states that:
Dogs that have bitten, attacked or pose a menace.
A. Every owner of a dog shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from engaging in a dangerous act.
B. Where the Executive Director has reason to believe that a dog has engaged in a dangerous act against a person or domestic animal, an officer may: [Amended 2022-07- 22 by By-law 1065-2022].
(1) Where the dangerous act is the first on record with the City, serve the owner of the dog with a written warning.
(2) Despite Subsection B(1), if it is the officer's opinion that the dangerous act is severe, determine the dog to be a dangerous dog and serve the owner of the dog with an order to comply with the requirements for owners of a dangerous dog under § 349-15.1.
(3) Where the dangerous act is the second or subsequent dangerous act on record with the City, determine the dog to be a dangerous dog and serve the owner of the dog with an order to comply with the requirements for owners of a dangerous dog under § 349-15.1.
(4) Where the dangerous act occurred while the dog was the subject of a notice to muzzle or notice of caution under this Chapter or any of its predecessors, or a control order under the Dog Owners Liability Act, determine the dog to be a dangerous dog and serve the owner of the dog with an order to comply with the requirements for owners of a dangerous dog under § 349-15.1.
74Although this is the first offence under this City of Toronto bylaw for Edgar Lavergne and would usually be addressed with a written warning given the provisions of Municipality of Toronto Chapter 349 bylaw, there are several aggravating factors in this case. I find the defendant moved himself and his large dog close to the small dog, took his dog off leash and did not try to stop the attack. After his dog killed the smaller dog, he left the scene of the incident before police arrived. His dog attacked a much smaller dog without being provoked. He has never appeared in court to address this charge.
ORDER
75For the reasons noted, the defendant is guilty as charged.
Released: June 22, 2026
Signed: Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks