Animal Control Officer v. Randay and Randay Date:, 2013 BCPC 78

Citation: Animal Control Officer v. Randay and Randay Date: 20130129 2013 BCPC 0078 File No: 77018-1 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of

Section 49 of the Community Charter , SBC 2003, c. 26 and in the matter of an application to destroy the dog "Buster and the dog "Midnight" BETWEEN: THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER for THE CITY OF ABBOTSFORD APPLICANT AND: PARMINDER RANDAY and DAVID RANDAY RESPONDENTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C.J. ROUNTHWAITE

Counsel for Applicant : A. Price Counsel for Respondents: T. Magder, law student Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Dates of Hearing: November 26, 27, 2012 and January 14, 2013 Date of Judgment: January 29, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT : This is an application pursuant to s. 49(10) of the Community Charter for an order that two dogs owned by the Randays be destroyed: Buster, I believe a six-year-old Rhodesian Ridgeback cross, and Midnight, a four-year-old Pit Bull cross. Their owners have admitted these dogs are both dangerous dogs, within the meaning of the Charter.

The question is what to do with them; whether there is a creative solution which will, ensure the protection of the public, or whether the dogs must be destroyed. As has been said in other cases, this requires a balancing of the public's interest in being reasonably safe and secure on the one hand, against the interests of the owners in not having their dogs put down unnecessarily, where reasonable alternatives exist. A balancing is required, but one in which public safety is paramount. [ 2 ] I am going to start by saying that I am a dog person.

I fully understand the importance of a dog to a family, that a dog is indeed a member of the family. I also recognize and appreciate the recent steps taken by the Randays to try and guarantee the confinement of their dogs. Outdoors, they built a fully enclosed steel run for the dogs. They have a fully fenced backyard with two lockable gates. Indoors, they have a lockable family room, with the intention to confine the dogs in the locked room whenever anyone, even family members enter the house. On the face of it these are good plans.

The Randays have the best of intentions, but I am deeply concerned by what I will call the unexpected events, the "what ifs." [ 3 ] The Randays have a tenant. What about the safety of the tenant, or if the tenant has a visitor and forgets to let them know so that they can lock the dogs away? What if there is a trespasser onto the property that breaks down the gates, or even breaks into the dogs' enclosure?

What if the family members get tired of always following the protocols; for example, it is raining out and you get careless, think just this once I will let them outside on their own? [ 4 ] The best way of assessing the likelihood of such unexpected events, and the potential consequences from those events, if they do occur, is by examining the history of these dogs. In 2008 Buster, with no provocation, bit a stranger while she was walking on a public trail, clamped down on her left hip with a head toss, leaving four puncture wounds which took a week to heal. That person is now extremely fearful of large dogs.

At the time, the Randays said that Buster had never done anything like that before and they would have him muzzled whenever he was taken outside. Later in 2008, Buster bit a neighbour's son as he ran through the bushes into the Randay's yard. The dog was leashed, I think, but not muzzled. The Randays did not think anyone would be out late at night or in their yard: an unexpected event, and indeed a failure to follow through with the planned protocol. [ 5 ] In 2009, Buster bit their tenant's daughter while she was simply chatting with Mrs. Randay. He lunged at her, leaving punctures on her thigh.

She had to take a week off work, and it took four to six weeks for the swelling and bruising to heal. The Randays said that previously they had asked their tenant to let them know if she was having visitors so that they could lock up the dogs. They had no idea at that time that there were others on the property. Again, an unexpected event. After this incident the Randays said they would make sure that the dogs stayed in their proper pen. [ 6 ] According to a neighbour, both dogs had a habit of throwing themselves repeatedly at the wooden fence.

One day in 2010, the panel came down and Midnight charged at the neighbour, getting within ten feet of her before the neighbour was able to run inside her house and slam the door. The same year, there was some sort of an incident involving Buster in the park, where an elderly woman fell down. The police came to the house to look at the dogs, and Buster lunged at the door causing the panel to fall out. Mrs. Randay intervened by slamming the door between police officer and dog. [ 7 ] In 2011, both dogs again escaped onto neighbouring property.

This time the Randays repaired the fence with metal mesh, believing that at that point their yard would be fully secured. It was not just strangers or acquaintance neighbours who were at risk. One neighbour was very friendly with the dogs, and indeed, gave them treats on a daily basis. Even so, when she had some sort of a treat for the dog, waiting to give it to them, Midnight bit her on the thigh. [ 8 ] In January of 2012, the Randays signed a document acknowledging that Buster was a dangerous dog, and promised to keep him in a securely closed and locked enclosure, when he was not muzzled and on a leash.

Even with that promise, with all the efforts that they had made to secure the dogs, to secure the yard, the worst events happened in February of 2012. Apparently someone kicked in the gate to the property. Both dogs escaped again an unexpected event. Both dogs escaped and charged at two neighbouring women. The women ran into their house with the dogs one foot behind before they were able to close the door. Then, both dogs attacked a woman who was simply walking on the street, minding her own business. One or both dogs attacked her, knocking her down.

She told me about Midnight being at her head, Buster at her feet, and the pictures are rather graphic. She was left with a bite to the ear requiring three stitches, a deep bite to the arm requiring six stitches, a long deep scratch to her thigh and puncture marks. I am satisfied from all of the evidence, including the position of the injuries, that more than one dog indeed was involved in the attack.

Those particular injuries took three months to heal. [ 9 ] So, notwithstanding the best intentions from the Randays, their repeated assertions that they will do whatever they can to keep the dogs under control, to keep them confined, still the history is replete with unexpected events, and serious attacks. Unexpected events

happen in life, and most unfortunately, these dogs are indeed dangerous dogs. As one of the experts describe, they are a ticking time bomb. They will attack without provocation. History speaks for itself. While this family has certainly done whatever they can to try to get themselves in the best possible situation to get these dogs back, I am more than satisfied that I must, for the protection of the public, and indeed at this point, the protection of friends and family, make the order for destruction of these two dogs.

I am very sorry to have to do so. [ 10 ] I would like to compliment your counsel for her handling of the matter. Ms. Magder, you certainly did everything you could in order to defend these dogs. C.J. ROUNTHWAITE Provincial Court Judge