Owner of dogs that were shot dead ordered to pay thousands in B.C. bite case

After two or three dogs allegedly attacked a B.C. woman’s dog, she filed a claim through the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal, saying the owner of the dogs who were behind the attack was negligent.

According to the dispute decision, the woman, HE, claimed $5,000 in compensation for vet bills, missed work, gas and mileage, and pain and suffering.

The respondent in the case, KW, claimed there was no evidence to suggest his dogs were involved in the attack and denied that the woman was entitled to any compensation.

On Dec. 28, 2022, HE’s dog was outside on her property. While outside, she claims her dog was attacked by two or three dogs owned by KW. While KW acknowledged the attack and the dog’s injuries, he argued there was no evidence that his dogs were responsible for the attack.

HE provided several reports from her region’s animal control department.

“The reports are consistent with the application’s submissions and other evidence,” the tribunal said.

“At some point, the applicant also provided a photo taken by her neighbour of the dogs that attacked her dog. It appears animal control spoke to the respondent, and initially determined that there was not enough information to conclude it was the respondent’s dogs who had attacked.”

A few days later, on Dec. 31, 2023, someone else called animal control.

“Someone had shot and killed two dogs who attacked several goats on their farm,” the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision states.

The tribunal noted that the dogs who were killed matched the description and photo of the dogs that allegedly attacked HE’s dogs on Dec. 28.

Someone who spoke to animal control after that, whom the tribunal inferred was KW, notified animal control that his dogs were missing. After receiving this information, animal control decided it was likely the dogs that were shot and killed who were involved in the attack on HE’s dogs.

“As a result, an animal control officer deemed the respondent’s third dog an ‘aggressive dog’ under local bylaws and placed restrictions on it. The respondent does not dispute that any of the above relates to someone other than them, so I accept that it was,” the tribunal decision says.

Another email, which the tribunal inferred was KW in January 2023, suggested that his dogs were regularly kept in a locked and fenced-up yard, but “for whatever reason,” something triggered them to escape for around two hours.

Given all the evidence, the tribunal determined it was likely that KW’s dogs had initiated the attack. The tribunal had to determine that KW was responsible for the incident for HE to succeed with her claim.

The tribunal addressed responsibility by saying, “The respondent provided no evidence of the precautions they took to keep the dogs on their property. Without evidence showing otherwise, I find the respondent did not properly contain or restrain their dogs to prevent them from escaping and injuring the applicant’s dog.”

The tribunal determined that KW breached the standard of care and found that he was “liable in negligence.”

Turning to damages, a letter from a vet that outlined the dog’s injuries, including wounds and bruises all over the dog’s body, requiring surgery and sutures. There were also injuries to a tooth that required extraction. In vet bills, HE paid $2,783.82 plus an additional $955 for dental work.

For lost wages, HE provided a letter from her employer stating that she missed 18.5 hours over 2.5 days between December 2022 and January 2023 when the incident occurred.

The tribunal found KW liable for $449.88 in lost wages.

In total, including tribunal fees, KW was ordered to pay HE $4,780 within 21 days of the decision.