2015 QCCQ 4754, 2015 QCCQ 4754

Roberts c. Loong 2015 QCCQ 4754 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-140479-132 DATE: May 28, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CYNTHIA ROBERTS Plaintiff/cross-defendant v.

SCOTT LOONG Defendant/cross-plaintiff ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On September 19, 2013, as plaintiff was preparing to walk her dog ("Taffy"), it ran out of the house, through two open doors (in the house and garage). Unfortunately, it ran right up to a much bigger dog ("Kenya"), while barking loudly, and an altercation ensued. [ 2 ] Taffy is a male Lhasa Apso-Bichon mix and weighs 15 lbs.

Kenya is a female Malamute-German shepherd mix and weighs 100 lbs. [ 3 ] When the altercation occurred, Kenya was on leash and being walked by defendant's fiancée Thuy-Lan Nguyen and his aunt, on the sidewalk, in front of plaintiff's house. [ 4 ] As stated by Nguyen, Taffy ran towards them "quickly (whilst) barking. (Kenya) reacted. It happened very quickly". [ 5 ] Kenya, an older socialized dog, normally calm and of submissive temperament, reacted, by picking Taffy up in its mouth, and biting him.

When Kenya let go, plaintiff scooped up her dog, and took her to the veterinarian, who described the injuries as "severe bite wounds that could have potentially been life threatening" (exhibit P-3). [ 6 ] Plaintiff then took the dog to Centre Vétérinaire D.M.V. for further treatment. [ 7 ] Plaintiff is suing defendant in damages.

The claim, in the amount of $4,000.00, is comprised of an amount of $2,600.00 representing, the cost of veterinary services dispensed (invoices P-1, which actually total $2,381.58) and another amount of $1,400.00 "for the stress". [ 8 ] Defendant denies liability, claiming that Taffy's aggressive and territorial behaviour caused his dog to react and engage as it did. [ 9 ]

Article 1466 of the Civil Code of Quebec provides as follows: " 1466. The owner of an animal is bound to make reparation for injury it has caused, whether the animal was under his custody or that of a third person, or had strayed or escaped. A person making use of the animal is also, during that time, liable therefor together with the owner." [ 10 ] The presumption of liability created by this

article can be rebutted by proving force majeure , the fault of a third party or the victim's fault. [ 11 ] In the present case, the Court must decide if Taffy's actions and behaviour are sufficient to rebut the presumption of defendant's liability, as Kenya's owner. [ 12 ] In La Responsabilité Civile , [1] the authors write: " B. Moyens d'exonération

1. Faute de la victime 1-974 – Généralités – La faute de la victime peut servir soit à éliminer totalement la responsabilité du gardien, soit à la mitigerlorsqu'elle n'a fait que contribuer au préjudice subi.

D'une manière générale, les tribunaux exigent une prudence élémentaire à l'égard desanimaux dont les réactions sont souvent imprévisibles, et retiennent une faute chez la victime qui n'a pas observé cette prudence enprovoquant l'animal, en l'effrayant, ou en ne prenant pas à son endroit les précautions que la situation imposait." [13] Although the incident in and of itself and the injuries and pain sustained by Taffy are most unfortunate, the Court believes thatthey would not have occurred had Taffy not ran out of the house and up to Kenya (normally a calm dog), in the way in which it did("quickly (whilst) barking").

These gestures were unexpected and provocative, despite the difference in size of the dogs. Sadly, allowingthe dog to escape through two open doors and confront another dog as it did, is the fault that caused the damages which Taffysuffered.[2] [14] In McSween v. Lapointe,[3] the Superior Court decided as follows: " A seven-year-old child was bitten by a dog when he tried to pet him. At the time the dog was under the surveillance of the defendant's14-year-old son who was holding him with a leash.

The dog was not dangerous or vicious and hit the child with his teeth when turning itshead suddenly when the child approaching from behind, surprised him. Held: That the action is dismissed. The presumption against the owner of an animal, by virtue of C.c. 1055 can be rejected by proving afortuitous event or the fault of the victim. In the present case, the fright of the dog constitutes a fortuitous event. Furthermore, even if thevictim was too young to commit a fault, he was under the surveillance of his mother who should have stopped him from jumping on thedog." [15] And in Gauthier v.

Béland,[4] the Court of Appel decided: " Le témoignage du jeune Gauthier perd aussi substantiellement de sa valeur lorsqu'il raconte qu'il partait quand il s'est retourné pourregarder encore une fois le chien qui, alors, lui a sauté au visage. En effet, Francine Brière, entendue comme son témoin, le regardait aumoment de l'accident et elle nous dit qu'il était penché sur le chien lorsque celui-ci l'a mordu. Elle est un témoin désintéressé et sontémoignage doit l'emporter sur celui de Jacques Gauthier.

Ceci nous invite à croire que ce n'est pas au cours d'un excès de rage, non plusque par malice habituelle, que le chien l'a mordu. Il semble qu'il y ait eu provocation ou, pour le moins, impatience et ennui du chien parla persistance de la victime. Il est autrement inexplicable et imprévisible qu'un jeune chien, ordinairement doux et enjoué, mordesubitement celui qui le caresse. Afin de condamner le défendeur, il faudrait exiger de lui un standard de perfection à ce point exagéré qu'il rendrait impossible cetteactivité humaine, l'exercice de cette liberté.

Ce serait nettement à l'encontre des principes énoncés par la Cour suprême dans la décisionOuellet v. Cloutier ((1947) (SCC), R.C.S. 521) réitérés in re T. Eaton Co. Ltd. of Canada v. Dame Moore ((1951) (SCC), R.C.S. 470, à la p. 483) et O'Brien v. Le Procureur général de la province de Québec ((1961) (SCC),R.C.S. 184, à la p. 187)." [16] Defendant therefore successfully rebutted the presumption of liability created by art. 1466 C.C.Q. [17] At trial, defendant made a motion to amend his cross-demand.

Initially, he was claiming $4,000.00 in damages for defamation.Acknowledging that articles 953 ff. of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to actions involving small claims, do not apply to suits forslander (art. 954 C.C.P.), defendant asked to change the nature of his recourse from an action in damages for slander to an action indamages for the stress caused to his family and, more particularly, to his parents, who were "extremely uncomfortable taking Kenya onher daily walk" (mise en demeure, exhibit P-7). [18] Although the Court hereby allows the amendment,[5] the claim is denied, as the alleged damages were not sufficiently proved.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES the demand and the cross-demand, each party paying its own costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: May 12, 2015