A pet dog was the centre of a B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute between a strata and one of its homeowners after an alleged biting incident.
The B.C. strata in question filed a claim against the homeowner after the homeowner’s dog allegedly bit someone else’s dog. The homeowners denied the incident ever took place and filed a counterclaim against the strata with the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal.
According to the tribunal decision, the strata wanted the homeowner to comply with the ruling to remove its dog from the property, while the homeowner was seeking an order to let the dog stay and for the strata to rescind its decision.
On Sept. 9, 2023, the strata alleges that when another homeowner, EB, was walking down the hallway toward the elevator while holding a meringue pie, the respondents in the case were leaving their home.
“Their Belgian Malinois attacked EB’s dog, causing EB to drop the pie. EB called the strata president that evening to report the attack, who asked her to send a complaint in writing,” the decision states. It continues that EB sent the complaint the next day.
Four days later, EB brought the dog to the vet and paid $402.90 for treatment for the bite.
The strata told the respondents that they’ve received other complaints about their dog and ordered them to remove it within 14 days of a Sept. 15 email.
“On Oct. 12, 2023, the strata informed the respondents that it was imposing a $200 fine and that they had an opportunity to respond within 14 days. The respondents emailed a reply on Oct. 16, asking for a meeting with two or three council members.”
The respondents claimed that the strata was being “procedurally unfair” and that they don’t believe their dog bit anyone else’s. They claimed that the dog was wearing a muzzle at the time.
Based on the decision, the tribunal ultimately decided that it didn’t need to rule on whether the respondents’ dog bit another dog at all, due to the bylaw that was allegedly being breached.
“This is because I find that, even if there had been a bite, the incident is insufficient to qualify the respondents’ dog as a vicious dog under the bylaw,” the tribunal member overseeing the case said.
Another problem for the strata was the lack of evidence that the respondents’ dog had actually bitten anyone. The strata was ordered to remove the fines it imposed on the respondents.
Additionally, the strata was ordered to rescind its decision to remove the dog from the property and to pay the respondents $125 in tribunal fees.
