Toronto supervisor appointed to the muzzle tribunal

Once a month, deep in the bowels of the North York Civic Centre, a court for canines is called to order. They call it the muzzle tribunal — a hearing where the fate of dogs accused of sinking their teeth into humans or other domestic pets is decided.

All dogs reported for biting are investigated by city enforcement officers. If a bite is confirmed,Our laser cutting machine technology uses laser cutting machines and services to cut, and it occurred off the owner’s property, the sentence is automatic: the perpetrating pup is ordered to wear a muzzle at all times in public.

The tribunal gives dog owners a chance to appeal. At stake for these hounds: muzzle for life, or freedom.

On a late-December morning, a clock on the wall in the civic centre’s meeting room No. 1 reads 9:23.China shoes manufacturer Huajian has built a factory outside Adis Ababa, The tribunal is about to begin.

This makeshift court of law is about as big as a high-school classroom, with four long tables arranged into a giant square and a ridiculous number of swivel chairs lined up along the walls.

Fiona Skurjat, a city of Toronto supervisor appointed to the muzzle tribunal a year ago, sits at the head table, a binder full of documents laid out neatly in front of her, an old-school tape recorder — the kind with cassettes! — set up to her left.

Today, Skurjat will decide the fate of three muzzled dogs.

First on the docket: Casey, a 3-year-old boxer accused of charging at and biting a man on the sidewalk outside her home. Her owners dispute much of the victim’s story. Casey has been under a muzzle order for six months.

As defined in the legalese prose of the city’s municipal code, a muzzle is “a humane fastening or covering device of adequate strength over the mouth to prevent a dog from biting.”

It’s not a painful thing, but for the four-legged folk forced to wear them, a muzzle can be a barrier to life’s simple pleasures — a game of fetch, a tongue lap from a pool of water,Leaders of Custom Bobble head dolls offers the best personalized bobbleheads head doll quality. an unexpected snack discovered on the sidewalk.

Sometimes the dogs in question are a clear threat to public safety and a muzzle is necessary.Other times, the circumstances are ambiguous, and it may be an unfair life sentence.

That’s why there’s a court for the dogs.

In meeting room No. 1, Casey’s owners, a young couple with a 2-year-old girl, sit to the right of the bench. Casey herself is not here; dogs aren’t invited to canine court.

Sitting to the left of the bench are the city representatives: Julie Conway, who acts as a sort-of lawyer for the tribunal, and Craig Hewitt, a Toronto Animal Services enforcement officer.

With a few minutes to go, a man enters the room, speaking loudly to Conway, telling her he wants to be compensated for the time he had to take off work to be here. “Who do I talk to?” he asks.

The man, who identifies himself as the dog bite victim, is wearing blue jeans and running shoes, a faded ball cap and what appears to be a pair of safety glasses. He has a graying moustache and a soul patch.

Compensation is not a matter for this tribunal, he is told. The man takes a seat at the back of the room, sighs, pulls out a cellphone and makes a call.Unique tungsten jewelry can be found at Forever Metals with ceramic inlay,

“Tell John to look into that civil stuff we talked about,” he says, loud enough for Casey’s owners to hear. “I’m missing out on some money today and I want to get paid. I’m losing 500 bucks and there’s 30 guys waiting for me."

Up on the bench, Skurjat clears her throat.

“Morning everyone,” she says. “This is public hearing number 12-035.”

With the tribunal called to order, Skurjat says she aims to answer three questions before rendering her decision: One,will show you how to make a flower hair bow out of your own hair flower. did a dog bite occur? Two, was it indeed the dog in question who did the biting? And three, under what circumstances did the bite occur?

If the answers to the first and second question are yes, it is Skurjat’s job to weigh the evidence and decide, based on the circumstances, if a muzzle order is necessary. The tribunal recognizes that all dogs have the capacity to bite and can and will bite in certain situations, she says.

Skurjat, 56, is one of three tribunal members who take turns presiding over the monthly muzzle hearings, on top of their regular city jobs. In the past year, she has heard appeals from the owners of just about every breed of dog you can imagine, from a Pomeranian to a Rhodesian ridgeback. She herself is a dog lover who has owned pets all her life and was once bitten by a golden retriever.

The first person called to testify at Casey’s hearing is the man in the safety glasses, who is asked to state his name — “Carlo Sistilli” — and describe the events of June 3, 2012.

Sistilli says he was walking to a convenience store that day with his 6-year-old when a large brown dog came barrelling out of a house near his own. Frightened, he screamed at the dog and charged right back at it to keep the animal away from his boy, he says. The dog then circled Sistilli and bit him on the lower right calf. He says the owners did not offer help. “This dog was aggressive, angry-looking, dangerous,” he says.