Toronto dog owner seeks enforcement of on-leash bylaw after puppy attacked
Sarah Hansen said she took the action after she and her husband were walking their then-seven-month-old chow chow puppy, Benjy, last September around 9 p.m. along Hazelton Ave. — where they live — towards Davenport Rd..
Hansen claims an unleashed, medium-sized black poodle was walking in front of them with a female pet owner, who lives on the same street as her, and a male friend.
'I noticed the dog stopped, looked at Benjy and started charging towards Benjy, barking aggressively and then jumped on Benjy,' said Hansen.
'He's about two to three times the size of Benjy. And when he started to jump on Benjy and tried to scratch his back, me and my husband got in between them and tried to pick up Benjy and pull Benjy towards my arms,' she said. 'At the same time, we're telling them, 'Please, get your dog away from our dog! Control the dog. Get him off our dog.' Basically we did get the dog off our dog. Benjy was howling because he was very scared.'
Recommended video
Benjy, who was taken to he vet, was mostly OK aside from having some anxiety and sore or sprained back paws.
'He has four layers of fur so I think that protected him from any bleeding,' said Hansen. 'He was limping a bit because (the dogs') feet got entangled together. I would say it was a level one (attack) based on this Dangerous Dog (Registry) level,' said Hansen, who added, 'they have different levels like zero to five I believe of how serious (the attack is).'
Hansen said she immediately reported the attack to the city's Dangerous Dog Registry four times, although the first time she didn't have the offending dog owner's address.
Hansen said this woman walks her poodle off-leash daily and she's approached her probably six more times since the attack to leash the canine, but added that request has gone nowhere.
For now, she walks Benjy at other times.
'As (the petition) is growing, I've sent it to a few councillors,' said Hansen. 'The one councillor that responded to me is Dr. Dianne Saxe (in the last few days). She's an avid animal lover and she's trying to help in any way she can.'
Saxe could not be reached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: West Virginia Governor Sending Guard Troops to Assist in D.C.
The Trump administration backed off one of its most explicit efforts to take control of the Washington police department on Friday, agreeing before a judge to leave the city's police chief in charge for now. Under pressure from Judge Ana C. Reyes of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, who pledged to intervene unless the administration retracted its move to insert an ally as the head of the police department, the Justice Department agreed to rescind part of an order on Thursday that had looked to do just that. In place of the old order, which had given absolute control over the city's police department to Terry Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, lawyers hastily drafted a revised version. The judicial threat and lightning negotiation session that followed presented the first major setback for the Trump administration in its rapid campaign to seize control of law enforcement in the nation's capital. But they left in place most of the structure of the federal takeover, maintaining less intrusive federal oversight of the police department and leaving federal agents and National Guard members free to continue patrolling Washington streets. The document agreed to on Friday preserved many elements of the order released on Thursday by Attorney General Pam Bondi, including authorizing Mr. Cole to 'direct the mayor to immediately provide' law enforcement in pursuit of many of the president's stated goals, including immigration enforcement and removing homeless people from public spaces. But it cut out a provision naming Mr. Cole the city's 'emergency police commissioner,' a role that appeared to usurp the authority of Pamela A. Smith, the city's police chief, to command the force and set its priorities. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the city's attorney general, Brian L. Schwalb, hailed the outcome even as lawyers were still racing inside to make the final revisions to Ms. Bondi's order. 'The local policing of our city sits with the mayor and the chief of police, notwithstanding the government, the president and the attorney general's efforts to suggest that they had taken control of our police force and put somebody in to run our police,' Mr. Schwalb said. 'I'm very gratified that the judge today recognized that that is flagrantly illegal, that it violates the clear language of the Home Rule Act and that, for all intents and purposes, the chief of police remains the chief of police.' 'My sincere hope is that we don't have to be back fighting over this issue again,' he added. On social media, Ms. Bondi attacked Mr. Schwalb, who had sued over the Trump administration's actions, while taking a softer tone toward Ms. Bowser. 'Unfortunately, the DC Attorney General continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety in Washington, DC,' she said, adding, 'We remain committed to working closely with Mayor Bowser, who is dedicated to ensuring the safety of residents, workers, and visitors in Washington, DC.' The compromise came shortly after Judge Reyes forcefully encouraged lawyers from both sides to reach a short-term truce that would have the federal government temporarily step back from asserting control over policing the city until the court dives more fully into the details of the case next week. Judge Reyes, a Biden appointee, made clear that her initial reaction was that the Trump administration had gone far beyond the authorities Congress intended in the 1973 Home Rule law granting the city limited self-governance. She told Yaakov Roth, a lawyer from the Justice Department, that she would block the order Ms. Bondi released on Thursday if the provision elevating Mr. Cole were not removed in negotiations. Washington's government sued the Trump administration on Friday, arguing that an executive order issued by President Trump on Monday federalizing the city's Police Department and the follow-up order by Ms. Bondi 'far exceed' the president's authority under the Home Rule law. In the emergency hearing on Friday, Judge Reyes said she was focused solely on reaching a truce that could last the weekend. While she said the Trump administration's broader actions using the Home Rule Act appeared unlawful, she effectively punted any discussion on that point to next week. Judge Reyes emphasized on Friday that she would need to eventually weigh in on Mr. Trump's claims that crime in the city had reached a breaking point, after each side could research and present evidence, including crime data and the steps the city has already taken this year to work with federal law enforcement in service of the president's goals. Statistics show that Washington's crime rate has been falling recently. She also noted that courts have not, so far, had occasion to scrutinize the bounds of the law, as no president had tested them until now. 'By the way, do we all agree that I'm fortunate enough to be the first person to rule on this section of the Home Rule Act?' she said. 'Uh, huzzah.' Mitchell Reich, a lawyer representing the District of Columbia, told the judge that the case raised 'a nest of novel questions' about federal power that needed to be resolved in a more holistic way. 'Oh, I agree with that,' she said. While the discussion on Friday was mostly confined to Mr. Cole's authority, Judge Reyes also clashed with Mr. Roth over what he believed the federal government could actually do with the city's police once it had federalized the force. She pushed back on a number of claims Mr. Roth made, including that he could effectively supplant the city's police chief in setting priorities across the department and steering large numbers of officers into certain neighborhoods or away from their standard work. Above all, she made clear that she did not believe the law gave the president the power to take control of the city's police and use the force to pursue objectives that may even violate the city's own laws and ordinances, like Washington's law restricting local police cooperation with immigration enforcement. 'It's antithetical to the notion of home rule,' Mr. Reich said. 'Local residents have local control.' 'I agree with you that they're not allowed to take over the police force, and Mr. Roth, if I gave him truth serum, he'd probably agree,' Judge Reyes said. After giving lawyers from both sides an hour to make their cases, Judge Reyes stepped away for an hour and a half to let them confer on a resolution to the standoff. When Mr. Roth returned to confirm that Mr. Cole would assume a more collaborative role for now, and work through the mayor's office to change the city's policing policy, she thanked both sides for 'very good work on very short notice.' 'I think these are the kind of issues that should be decided between the District and the government, so I'm thankful for you all,' she said. 'But again, if I have to step in, I will, OK?'
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Minneapolis resident cites crime as ‘concerning'
Minneapolis resident Tyler Kotlowski discusses his experiences with crime in his neighborhood on 'Fox & Friends Weekend.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Did the Wolverines receive a justifiable punishment?
After two years there has finally been a punishment slapped on the Michigan Wolverines for their sign-stealing saga that gained widespread attention in the college football industry. One of the biggest recent storylines in college football was very different from the USC Reggie Bush story. There was a much harsher penalty for the Trojans. In comparison to USC's penalty this punishment for the Wolverines seems like a slap on the wrist. College Sports Wire's Riley Donald examined the final ruling on the Wolverines' punishments in his latest article: "The Wolverines will also be without head coach Sherrone Moore for the first game of the 2026-27 season on top of the two-game suspension this upcoming season that was already self-imposed by Michigan. Other punishments include a 10-year show-cause penalty for Jim Harbaugh, Michigan's former head coach, who led them to the national championship, and an eight-year show-cause penalty for Connor Stalions, the alleged sign-stealer. Former Michigan QB Denard Robinson will also receive a three-year show-cause penalty. Some other punishments include a 25% drop in official visits that the football program can host in 2025-26, along with a 14-week probation period of recruiting communications during their four-year probationary period. "The fine sends a message to the rest of college football that revenue will be hit and the bottom line will be impacted for infractions. While it does do that, the Wolverines are coming out of this situation rather clean, as they have not had to sacrifice any success in their program's history." The Wolverines suffered fines and lost their head coach for just two games, nothing that drastically affects the future of the program. The USC Trojans are still feeling the repercussions of the Reggie Bush situation, and they had their 2004 title vacated. USC Trojans beat reporter Ryan Kartje of the Los Angeles Times provided his thoughts on the Wolverines' penalty in comparison to USC's in a recent tweet: "When USC was punished for the Reggie Bush extra benefits saga, the NCAA vacated USC's '04 title, banned them from the postseason and took away 30 scholarships. That punishment only gets more insane by the year." While justice was supposed to be served with the Wolverines' punishment for their wrongdoings, all it did was shine a light on how cruel another penalty was to USC. How the NCAA handles its punishments has been shown time and again to be very flawed. This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: How does Trojans Bush Penality compare to Wolverines new penalty
