R. v. Rasuli Date:, 2017 BCPC 310

Citation: R. v. Rasuli Date: 20170512 2017 BCPC 310 File No: 214690-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. AMIR RASULI REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE V. CHETTIAR Counsel for the Crown: E. Anderson Appearing on her own behalf Amir Rasuli Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: March 6, April 26, 27 and 28, 2017 Date of Judgment: May 12, 2017

[1] THE COURT: The trial of this matter was held over four days, on March 6 and April 26, 27 and 28, 2017. Today, I willdeliver my Reasons for Judgment in this matter. [2] By way of introduction, Mr. Amir Rasuli was charged with nine counts of breaching Delta Animal Control Bylaw No. 6893,2010 (I will refer to this as the Bylaw). However, during the course of the trial, the Corporation of Delta (I will refer to the Corporationof Delta as the Corporation) stayed Count No. 5. Therefore, Mr.

Rasuli now faces eight charges: two for failing to licence his two dogs,Aziz and Noor; two for permitting his dog to run at large; and four arising out of Noor being designated as an aggressive dog. Hedisputes these charges and has entered a not guilty plea to all of them, although during the trial he confirmed that he did fail to licence hisdogs for the 2016 year. [3] By way of background, the Corporation is a municipality under the Local Government Act, [RSBC 2015]

Chapter 1 and theCommunity Charter, [SBC 2003],

Chapter 26. Mr. Rasuli resides at 7495 - 117 Street in Delta, British Columbia. Mr. Rasuli is theowner of Noor and was the owner of Aziz at the time of the relevant charges. [4] Aziz was a black/tan German shepherd cross. She was approximately 17 years of age at the time of the relevant charges. Shepassed away on December 24, 2016. Noor is a beige male Italian Mastiff, born 2012. He was about four years old at the time of therelevant charges. The parties do not take issue with respect to the identity of Mr.

Rasuli or the dates or locations of the alleged breaches. [5] The issues to be determined in this case are as follows: 1. Did Mr. Rasuli, on February 18, 2016, fail to licence Noor and Aziz, contrary to s. 3 of the Bylaw? (This question deals withCounts 1 and 2.) 2. Did Mr. Rasuli, on December 19, 2015, permit Aziz and on March 2, 2016, permit Noor, to run at large, contrary to s. 23 of theBylaw? (This question deals with Counts 3 and 4.) 3. Is Noor an “aggressive dog” within the meaning of the Bylaw? 4. If Noor is an aggressive dog within the meaning of the Bylaw, did Mr. Rasuli: (

a) on December 19, 2015: (

i) fail to keep Noor effectively muzzled (that relates to Count 6); and (ii) fail to keep Noor on a leash no longer than 1.2 metres in length (that relates to Count 7); when in a public place, contrary to paragraphs 31(

a) and (b), respectively, of the Bylaw? and (

b) on February 18, 2016, fail to: (

i) provide proof to the Corporation that he carries liability insurance (that relates to Count 8); and (ii) have a licensed veterinarian implant an electronic identification microchip in Noor and provide the microchip number to theAnimal Shelter Manager (that relates to Count 9); contrary to paragraphs 30(

a) and (b), respectively, of the Bylaw. [6] I will now turn to the analysis of the issues. First I will set out the legal framework. [7] The Corporation, being a municipality, may, under s. 260(1) of the Community Charter, make bylaws for the purposes ofenforcing its bylaws. [8] Under s. 260(2) of the Community Charter, the Corporation has, among other remedies, the authority to deal with thecontravention of its bylaws by prosecution of the offence in accordance with the Offence Act, [RSBC 1996],

Chapter 338. [9]

Section 2 of the Offence Act states that "an offence created under an enactment is punishable on

summary conviction." [10] In this case, the Corporation is prosecuting in accordance with the Offence Act by way of Information in Form 2. [11]

Section 4 of the Offence Act and s. 72 of the Bylaw provide that, upon

summary conviction, a person is liable to a fine of notmore than $2,000 or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or to both. The Corporation informed the court that in Mr. Rasuli'scase it is not seeking any imprisonment. [12]

Section 8 of the Offence Act provides that: subject to

section 2.1 of the Provincial Court Act, every justice has jurisdiction to try, determine and adjudge proceedings to which thisAct applies in the territorial division over which the justice has jurisdiction. [13] The Corporation submits that in a case involving the designation of the dog as “aggressive” or “dangerous” under a bylaw, it isopen to the reviewing judge to determine the correctness of that designation in accordance with the applicable bylaw, and cites asauthority the case of R. v. Moser, 2011 BCPC 22 at paragraph 20. [14] According to the Supreme Court of Canada case, R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299,

offences against municipal bylaws are regulatory or public welfare offences (in other words, strict liability offences). The municipality need not prove mens rea (that is, the intention to commit the offence); however, it must prove the actus reus (that is, the offending act or omission) beyond a reasonable doubt.

If it does so, then the burden shifts to the accused to establish, on a balance of probabilities, an exception, exemption, excuse or qualification from the requirement in the bylaws which was breached, amounting to a defence of due diligence. [ 15 ] The test for due diligence is whether the accused believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or omission innocent, and the accused took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event. [ 16 ] In this case there were many witnesses. Five witnesses testified on behalf of the Corporation. They were:

(1) Tamara Laza, Animal Control Officer with the Corporation.

(2) Susan Catherine Haydu, a former neighbour of Mr. Rasuli who witnessed the August 2015 incident.

(3) Nickolas Henze, Animal Control Officer with the Corporation. He was with the Corporation from January of 2008 until February 17 of 2017 when he retired.

(4) Atheana Scovill, a person who witnessed the August 2015 incident. She was also a neighbour of Mr. Rasuli.

(5) Susan Mussche, a former neighbour of Mr. Rasuli. Four witnesses in addition to Mr. Rasuli testified on behalf of Mr. Rasuli. They were:

(1) Kevin William John Fairley, a current neighbour of Mr. Rasuli who has lived at his residence for about 12 years.

(2) Dr. Nicole Wensink, a doctor of veterinary medicine who graduated in 2006 and is a small animal practitioner. After inquiry, she was accepted as an expert in dog behaviour as well.

(3) Jane Elizabeth Magsin, a Certified Professional Dog Trainer – Knowledge and Skills Assessed, and a Registered Veterinary Technician. She has been a dog trainer since 1981 and has been teaching dog training since 1985. In 2003, she was certified as a Professional Dog Trainer and in 2015 had her skills and knowledge assessed, as a Professional Dog Trainer. After inquiry, she too was accepted as an expert in dog behaviour.

(4) Monique Charbonnier, a Certified Professional Dog Trainer since 2001. She has been training dogs for about 26 years. After inquiry, she was also accepted as an expert in dog behaviour. [ 17 ] As I said, Mr. Rasuli also testified on his own behalf. After the conclusion of the trial, with no objection from the Corporation, he brought Noor into the courtroom for a few minutes as Noor was the main subject of this trial. [ 18 ] I will now discuss the issues in the order I stated earlier; issue number 1 being: Did Mr. Rasuli, on February 18, 2016, fail to licence Noor and Aziz, contrary to s. 3 of the Bylaw? This question deals with Counts 1 and 2. [ 19 ]

Section 3 of the Bylaw states as follows: No person shall keep, harbour or own a dog that is more than 6 months old that is unlicensed. [ 20 ] There is no dispute that both Aziz and Noor were more than six months old as at February 18, 2016, being the date of the alleged offence. [ 21 ] Mr. Rasuli acknowledges that he did not licence Aziz or Noor for the 2016 year. He says he did not do so for the following reasons: 1. He has lived at his current residence for the past 17 years and has had five dogs on his property over these years. He normally licenses his dogs every year.

However, in September 2015, the Corporation, through Delta Community Animal Shelter, without proper basis, designated Noor as an aggressive dog, which attracted increased licence fee of $510 and property liability insurance coverage of a million dollars. 2. Based on unfounded complaints, the Corporation unfairly targeted him and his dogs. 3. The Corporation failed to properly and timely investigate: (

a) the complaints he made (for example, when another dog killed his oldest dog; when his brother was bitten by another dog on August 1 st , 2014); and (

b) those complaints others made against him and his dogs (for example, the complaints made by Ms. Scovill and Ms. Mussche). Of the complaints that were recorded, the Animal Control Officers' reports were incomplete or inaccurate as to the circumstances of the alleged incidents. 4. The Corporation discriminated against him and treated him with disrespect (for example, the Animal Control Officers frequently conducted surveillance of him and his dogs, photographed them, attended at his residence with the escort of the Delta Police – in essence, harassed him and his dogs). 5.

The Corporation was not there for him in his time of need (for example, when Aziz died and when his brother was bitten by another dog on August 1 st , 2014). [ 22 ] He submits, based on these reasons, he has lost faith in the Corporation and as a matter of principle, he will not degrade his dogs or himself by licensing his dogs to please a system that has failed him and his loved ones on a number of occasions. [ 23 ] Let me first say that I found Mr. Rasuli to be forthright and passionate about the issues he is facing before this court.

He went to considerable lengths, including canvassing about 80 of his neighbours to sign a petition about their positive or negative experiences with his dog Noor and also obtaining various reference letters. There is no doubt that he loves his dogs dearly. He truly spoke from his heart. Even though he has a vested interest in the outcome of this trial, I did not find him to exaggerate or embellish his evidence. [ 24 ] To his detriment, Mr. Rasuli appears to have not taken the appropriate steps to deal with his issues at the appropriate forums.

For example, rather than dealing with any complaints or grievances he may have had with respect to the conduct of the Animal Control Officers or the Delta Police through the proper channels, he chose not to licence his dogs, thereby falling in non-compliance with s. 3 of

the Bylaw. [ 25 ] Unfortunately, the reasons he submits for failure to licence his dogs do not fall within the ambit of the due diligence defence (as articulated in the Sault Ste. Marie case that I referred to earlier). [ 26 ] While I accept that Mr. Rasuli did not agree with the Corporation's designation of Noor as an aggressive dog, he could have at least paid the normal licensing fee for Noor for 2016 and challenged the aggressive dog designation through the appeal process afforded to him under s. 28 of the Bylaw. There were no issues with Aziz and he could have paid the licensing fee for her, but Mr.

Rasuli did not do this. Instead, as he put it "he chose not to licence" the dogs even though he knew he had to and he was clearly notified of the appeal process under s. 28. [ 27 ] Therefore, I find Mr. Rasuli in breach of s. 3 of the Bylaw and guilty on Counts 1 and 2. [ 28 ] I turn to issue 2: Did Mr. Rasuli, on December 19, 2015 permit Aziz and on March 2, 2016 permit Noor, to run at large, contrary to s. 23 of the Bylaw? This question deals with Counts 3 and 4. [ 29 ]

Section 23 of the Bylaw states as follows: Every Responsible Person shall ensure that any animal they are responsible for, other than a spayed cat, does not run at large or trespass in or upon any private lands or premises. [ 30 ] The term "at large" is defined in s. 2 of the Bylaw as follows: "at large" means any animal that is not under control by being: (

i) on the property of its owner or of another person who is responsible for its care and control; (ii) on a leash and controlled by a person who is competent to control it; (iii) securely confined within an enclosure; or (iv) securely tethered so that it is unable to roam. The relevant portion of this definition is clause (ii), that Mr. Rasuli failed to keep his dogs on a leash. [ 31 ] Officer Henze testified that while on patrol on December 19, 2015, he saw Mr. Rasuli walk three dogs, Noor, Aziz and a small Terrier-type dog, close to 75A Avenue and 116 Street – 116 Street being a busy street in Delta.

He said Noor and the smaller dog were on leash, but Aziz was not. He saw Mr. Rasuli holding his arms up and stopping traffic while the dogs were crossing the road. Officer Henze also testified that on March 2, 2016 Noor was off-leash. [ 32 ] Mr. Rasuli's evidence is that there is no traffic light at the location he stopped traffic, and Aziz is very old and she suffered from arthritis. She walked extremely slowly and many times when she got tired she would simply sit down and would not be able to keep up with his other dogs.

He says Aziz had a clean record all her life and he simply could not force her to walk when she could not. He submits that is why he did not leash her. [ 33 ] Regarding Noor, he says, he has been on a leash for more than two years. He says the only time he may be off leash and only for a matter of a few minutes is when Noor wants to do his business or "poop" as Mr. Rasuli put it. He says that is probably the only time he may have been seen off-leash. [ 34 ] While I understand Mr.

Rasuli's reasons and his compassion towards his dogs, unfortunately, and strictly speaking, he is in violation of s. 23 of the Bylaw by his own admission that Aziz and Noor were off-leash. [ 35 ] In my view, his reasons do not fall within the ambit of the due diligence defence. As I said earlier, the test for the due diligence defence is whether Mr. Rasuli believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render his omission to leash the dogs innocent, and he took all reasonable steps to avoid such omission. That is not the case here. Mr.

Rasuli knew that he had to leash his dogs, but he chose not to leash them for the reasons he has stated. [ 36 ] Therefore, I have no option but to find Mr. Rasuli in breach of s. 23 of the Bylaw and guilty on Counts 3 and 4. [ 37 ] I turn to issue 3: Is Noor an “ aggressive dog ” within the meaning of the Bylaw? [ 38 ] The term "aggressive dog" is defined in s. 2 of the Bylaw as follows: " aggressive dog " means a dog which: (

i) has been designated as an aggressive dog pursuant to

section 27 and such designation has not been appealed or has been appealed and the designation has been upheld. I will not refer to clauses (ii) and (iii) as they do not apply in this case. [ 39 ]

Section 27 of the Bylaw, in part, states as follows: If an Animal Control Officer , based on his or her own knowledge or observations or a written complaint, has reason to believe that a dog : (

a) has, without provocation, aggressively pursued, attacked or bitten another animal or a person;

the Animal Control Officer may, without limiting the powers available to him or her pursuant to any applicable legislation, designate the dog to be an aggressive dog . . . This

section goes on to set out what the Animal Control Officer must do upon making such a designation in terms of notifying the owner. [ 40 ] The bulk of the evidence I heard in this matter from the ten witnesses who testified related to the issue of whether or not Noor was an aggressive dog within the meaning of the Bylaw. [ 41 ] Officer Henze testified that the designation of Noor as an aggressive dog arose out of an altercation or a biting incident that occurred between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on August 22, 2015 between Noor and a two-and-a-half-year-old male Husky-type dog named Shadow.

During this incident both Shadow and his owner, Mr. Maurice Bilodeau, sustained injuries. [ 42 ] The narration of this incident varied slightly from witness to witness. I will point out some of their inconsistencies. However, Noor's aggressive dog designation was based on Officer Henze's personal observations of the injuries caused to Shadow and to Mr. Bilodeau and the written complaints filed by Mr. Bilodeau and Ms. Scovill, on whose property Mr. Bilodeau lived as a renter. [ 43 ] Mr. Bilodeau lived in his trailer that was parked on Ms. Scovill's property. Shadow was Mr.

Bilodeau's guard dog to protect his trailer. He was often tied to the fence or the trailer. On the day of the incident, his dog Shadow was on a leash, tied to the fence along the outside of the property, adjacent to where the trailer was parked. There was a break in the fence, and the altercation is said to have occurred at this location in the boulevard. [ 44 ] According to Mr. Bilodeau, he was sitting in his driveway next to his dog. He was looking to see who was pulling into the driveway, and as he turned around he saw a big Mastiff dog – that is Noor – all over Shadow. When Mr.

Bilodeau tried to separate the dogs, Noor bit him as well. Noor was not on a leash. Mr. Rasuli was trying to pull on his collar, but he could not control Noor. So, Mr. Bilodeau kicked Noor and pulled Shadow away. Mr. Rasuli then left. Since Mr. Bilodeau has moved to Montreal, he was not available to testify at trial. [ 45 ] Ms. Scovill's description of the event was more detailed than that of Mr. Bilodeau. She was the requester on this complaint.

Her versions of this incident as described to the Corporation in her initial complaint, later in her written statement, and then at trial, all varied slightly from one another. For example, in her initial complaint, she said Mr. Bilodeau had Shadow tied to a six-foot leash attached to his trailer, allowing the dog three feet of access onto the adjacent boulevard when Noor attacked.

However, at trial, she said Shadow was on a ten-foot leash and could not go past two feet on leash; and then at another point in the trial, she also said Shadow was on leash one foot away from the fence. [ 46 ] She testified that at the time of the incident, she was in her backyard and she heard Mr. Bilodeau calling, "Shadow, no, no", and then she saw Shadow pinned down by Noor, in a "T", with one dog standing on top of the other dog. This does not seem to fit with the two puncture wounds shown on the photograph of Shadow above his right foreleg and below his neck.

However, she described Shadow's injury as a "gash on his throat" which is far from the actual injury. She also said Mr. Bilodeau had a "hole" on his finger, whereas, Officer Henze wrote in his notes after his meeting with Mr. Bilodeau on August 28, 2015 that he "sustained a scrape to his right hand", which is consistent with the photograph in evidence of his injury. [ 47 ] The evidence also indicates that Shadow was taken to the Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic to attend to his injuries, whereas there is no evidence of any medical attention to Mr.

Bilodeau's injury, confirming that his injury was only a scrape, rather than a hole as Ms. Scovill described it. [ 48 ] Ms. Scovill was vivid in her description of the timing of the incident – that it was in the afternoon, and that she had a clear view of the incident as there was good light – when in fact other evidence indicates that the incident took place between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. in the evening. Also, Ms. Scovill specifically included in her written statement that she saw Mr.

Rasuli "walking his dog", referring to Noor, "on at least 100 prior occasions past my house, for several years now, always off leash." Mr. Rasuli furiously challenges her statement. As with many of Ms. Scovill's statements, I find this statement to be an exaggeration as well. [ 49 ] On the whole, I find the majority of Ms. Scovill's evidence unreliable and, as a result, I am unable to give it any weight. [ 50 ] The third witness to this incident is Ms. Haydu, a former neighbour of Mr. Rasuli. Her residence was two houses across the street from where Mr. Bilodeau's trailer was parked. Ms.

Haydu's description of the event is as follows: she was outside in her garden watering when she saw two dogs, identified as Shadow and Noor, engaged in an altercation, barking loudly; she did not leave her property to go over to where the altercation was happening; from where she was, she saw the two dogs were close to each other, but she did not see them on top of each other. She said she did not see any bites from where she was. [ 51 ] She said she lived at her former address for about eight years and have seen Mr. Rasuli walking his dogs, both on leash and off leash.

She estimated that the on-leash and off-leash incidences were about 50/50. She also said she saw Shadow tied to the fence or the trailer and that it was on a long rope, maybe about ten feet in length, and that it would bark a lot, especially when people would walk by. [ 52 ] It is important to note that when Officer Henze met with Mr. Bilodeau on April 27 and 28 of 2015, he found Mr. Bilodeau to be friendly and coherent and not angry. Mr. Bilodeau indicated to Officer Henze that he was moving back to Montreal. It was Ms. Scovill who approached Mr.

Rasuli to ask him to contribute to the vet's bill for attending to Shadow's injuries from the incident. [ 53 ] If Noor was the aggressor in this incident, one would think that Mr. Bilodeau would have been angry and would likely have pursued Mr. Rasuli for what Noor did to Shadow. [ 54 ] Mr. Rasuli's version of this incident is as follows: Shadow was tied to the trailer on a long leash, and Shadow jumped at Noor and Noor jumped back at Shadow; Noor was on top of Shadow at most between 30 seconds to a minute; Mr.

Rasuli commanded Noor "to go stand over there" and Noor immediately complied; at this point, Noor was about three years old and weighed over 200 pounds.

[ 55 ] Mr. Rasuli does not dispute that Noor bit Shadow, but he vehemently disputes the Corporation's designation of Noor as an aggressive dog. Other than Mr. Rasuli, none of the witnesses provided any evidence as to what triggered the altercation between Shadow and Noor – possibly because they did not see Shadow jump at Noor, but only first heard the loud barking when the two dogs were interacting with each other. [ 56 ] When Officer Laza attended at Mr. Rasuli's residence regarding this incident, it appears that there was a heated exchange of words between Officer Laza and Mr. Rasuli.

That, I assume, did not allow the parties to fully discuss and assess what actually happened at the incident. It appears that words were exchanged, and Officer Laza issued a Temporary Confinement Order, to which Mr. Rasuli did not respond well, and stated that he would not muzzle his dog. [ 57 ] It also appears that the enforcement process escalated from there and ended up in the issuing on September 3, 2015 of the Deeming Letter and the two fines to Mr. Rasuli. That attendance also did not go well, with Mr. Rasuli directing profanities at Officer Henze.

Needless to say, there has been a history of negative interactions between the parties over the years. [ 58 ] In the midst of all of these negative interactions, it appears that the essence of the cause of the altercation between Shadow and Noor had been lost on all concerned. That is, that it was Shadow that jumped at Noor first causing Noor to respond in a defensive manner. There is no evidence that the Corporation investigated Shadow or Mr. Bilodeau. However, Dr. Wensink's evidence that Shadow was excitable and he tried to bite her when she treated him on August 26, 2015 and Ms.

Haydu's evidence that Shadow would be tied up a lot and that he would bark when people would pass by sheds some light as to Shadow's volatile nature. Mr. Rasuli also said that Shadow would not play with Ms. Scovill's four dogs on her property, although Ms. Scovill said that Shadow did play with two of her dogs. [ 59 ] In any event, in light of all of this evidence, I find that Shadow did provoke Noor, causing him to respond in the way he did. Ms. Charbonnier pointed out that had Noor been an aggressive dog, he would have kept attacking Shadow and would not have responded to Mr.

Rasuli's command "to go stand over there." [ 60 ] The October 2013 incident between Ms. Mussche's dog Nattie and Noor is another example of Noor's behaviour when he is provoked. In this incident, Nattie first lunged at Noor, provoking him to respond with a bite. Ms. Magsin, as a Registered Vet Technician, described Noor's bite on Nattie as a "single-tooth triangular bite" and that it was a minimal contact bite and not serious in nature. She explained that dogs do this in self-defence.

She pointed out that Noor did not cause any puncture, and that if Noor was an aggressive dog, he would not have let go of Nattie. [ 61 ] There is no doubt in my mind, not only based on Mr. Rasuli's witnesses' evidence, but also on Officer Henze's evidence, that Noor is not an aggressive dog within the meaning of the Bylaw. [ 62 ] The evidence is replete with examples of why Noor is not an aggressive dog. I will mention a few examples to explain why I came to the conclusion that Noor is not an aggressive dog. [ 63 ] Mr. Fairley said: (

a) his children, aged 12 and 10, never felt any danger from Noor; (

b) his son, when four or five years of age, would regularly ride Noor; and (

c) Noor is one of the calmest and gentlest giant dogs. [ 64 ] Dr. Wensink, who has treated both Shadow and Noor, said: (

a) in all the time she has seen Noor, he has not been aggressive towards her or others in her clinic, and she has never had the need to muzzle him; (

b) when she neutered him, he was frightened, but neither she nor her staff felt Noor was a danger to them; and (

c) another vet at her clinic who treated Noor, wrote in the vet notes that Noor was a "nice dog." [ 65 ] Ms. Magsin, in her professional assessment of Noor, noted the following: (

a) Mr. Rasuli had a very strong relationship with Noor; (

b) Noor was attentive to Mr. Rasuli, was aware of his movements and was responsive to his verbal direction; (

c) Mr. Rasuli also definitely understood Noor and provided him with direction; (

d) Noor tended to respond in a calm and neutral manner generally, his energy remained low consistently, and he appeared passive and would often make the choice to avoid situations; and (

e) Noor exhibited normal, acceptable dog behaviour, allowing him to be a part of the community. [ 66 ] At trial, Ms. Magsin testified that dogs are generally fearful and defensive, and not aggressive. She said Noor's size is intimidating, but his demeanour is low key. He is very comfortable with Mr. Rasuli and thinks his world is with Mr. Rasuli. [ 67 ] Ms. Charbonnier, in her assessment of Noor on April 16, 2016, made the following observations: (

a) Noor was confident, calm, people-oriented, secure, dependent, gentle and polite;

(

b) Noor is a good canine citizen with great social skills and self-control around dogs; and (

c) Noor is safe to be around dogs. [ 68 ] Officer Henze also made the following statements: (

a) in his notes of October 26, 2013 regarding the Nattie and Noor incident, he wrote, "dog", referring to Noor, "did not behave in an outwardly aggressive manner to Henze, but neither was overly friendly." (

b) at trial, he testified that he spoke with about ten of Mr. Rasuli's neighbours and no one had anything negative to say about Mr. Rasuli's dogs; (

c) he also testified that although he felt aggression from Mr. Rasuli twice, he never felt any aggression from his dogs. [ 69 ] The expert witnesses' evidence indicates that a dog's behaviour does not generally change over time, unless it is placed in a stressful situation. Dr. Wensink also said that a dog's aggressiveness depends on the circumstances and its owner and how it is trained. [ 70 ] As I said earlier, based on all of the evidence before me, I conclude that Noor is not an aggressive dog within the meaning of the Bylaw.

Therefore, Counts 6 to 9 must fail as they are premised on a finding that Noor is an aggressive dog. It is not necessary for me to address the fourth question I posed earlier. In the result, I set aside Counts 6, 7, 8 and 9. [ 71 ] In conclusion, I am satisfied that on the totality of the evidence before me, viewed as a whole, and for the reasons I have stated, I find Mr. Rasuli guilty on Counts 1 to 4 and I set aside Counts 6 to 9. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)