An appeal of a destruction order issued against a dog that had bitten two children in the face, causing catastrophic injuries including near loss of an eye and severe facial lacerations.
The appellant consented to the destruction order at the original hearing but subsequently appealed on multiple grounds, including claims of incompetent counsel, procedural unfairness, and that his consent was invalid due to confusion.
The appellant also presented expert reports post-appeal suggesting the dog could be rehabilitated.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding the consent was informed, voluntary, and unequivocal, and rejecting the expert reports as inadmissible hearsay presented without proper notice to the Crown.
