2012 QCCQ 5782, 2012 QCCQ 5782

Wright c. Liesse Animal Clinic Inc. 2012 QCCQ 5782 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-120529-096 DATE: June 29, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ GLENN WRIGHT […], Lasalle Qc. […] Plaintiff v. LIESSE ANIMAL CLINIC INC. 11575, Côte-de-Liesse, Dorval Qc. H9P 1B4 -and- DR.

ROBERT LANGILL (same address) Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff Glenn Wright is claiming $7,000 from Defendants Liesse Animal Clinic inc. and Dr. Robert Langill, following the loss of Mr. Wright's dog. Defendants deny responsibility. The evidence: [ 2 ] Mr. Wright had a dog Sophie who was a mixed schnauzer and shiatsu. He described Sophie as a rescue dog, who was four or five years of age. [ 3 ] Mr. Wright adored his pet. There was a bond between Mr.

Wright and his dog; Sophie sensed his problems and provided him with affection and enjoyment of life. [ 4 ] On April 30, 2008, Sophie was not well; she was unable to stand. Mr. Wright brought Sophie to the Liesse Animal Clinic, and went in, holding his dog in his arms. According to Mr. Wright, Sophie's head was following over to the side. He told the receptionist, Ms. Collyer, that Sophie was not well that morning and he wanted to see Dr. Langill. [ 5 ] Mr. Wright was asked to wait. After one patient left Dr. Langill's examining room, Dr.

Langill examined another animal before Sophie was seen 12 minutes later. [ 6 ] Mr. Wright claimed Sophie was unable to stand on the examination table and approximately 30 seconds later, she went into seizure and cardiac arrest. [ 7 ] Dr. Langill disputed Mr. Wright’s statement as to Sophie's age. He had first seen Sophie in May 2005 and at that time, she was approximately nine years old. In April 2008, Sophie was 12 years old, very overweight, if not obese, and had not had any shots. [ 8 ] According to Dr. Langill, which was confirmed by Ms. Collyer, Mr. Wright had never mentioned there was an emergency. Dr.

Langill's first two patients that morning both had been emergency cases. Mr. Wright's dog was also seen before any regular patients were examined that day.

[ 9 ] Dr. Langill testified that Mr. Wright told him that his dog had been vomiting for several weeks, a fact Mr. Wright denies. Dr. Langill declared that Sophie appeared alert and responsive when she was brought in. When he began his examination, she collapsed, having suffered a heart attack. She was given CPR and an EKG machine was put on. Her heart ran again for 15 minutes but thereafter she had abnormal heart beats and passed away. [ 10 ] Ms. Collyer explained that her job is to

schedule appointments. She has no medical degree and she was unaware that Sophie was so ill. Mr. Wright had simply told her that Sophie had not felt well that morning. Analysis: [ 11 ] Mr. Wright is not claiming medical malpractice. However, he claims an error was committed by the employee, Linda Collyer, for not doing a proper triage. Rather than have Sophie examined by Dr. Langill, she asked Mr. Wright to take a seat and wait. It was 12 minutes before Sophie was seen by Dr. Langill, although, according to Mr. Wright, there was an emergency. He considers that Ms.

Collyer should have brought Sophie to be seen by Dr. Langill immediately. [ 12 ] For Mr. Wright, the situation was a matter of life and death and Sophie died because of the 12-minute wait before being examined. He believes Sophie's life could have been saved if treatment had begun earlier. [ 13 ] Dr. Langill claims that Mr. Wright's mannerisms that day were no different from his other routine appointments and Sophie, who was an obese 12 year old dog had died of cardiac arrest. The average life span for such a mixed breed is 13 years. ******* [ 14 ] In order to succeed, Mr.

Wright has to prove fault, damage and a relation between the two (

article 1457 of the Civil code of Quebec ). He also has to establish his claim by preponderant evidence ( articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec). [ 15 ] Mr. Wright's contention that Ms. Collyer committed a fault, by not doing a proper triage and by failing to have Sophie treated immediately by Dr. Langill, is not supported by the evidence. [ 16 ] Mr. Wright considered that Ms. Collyer should have known the situation was urgent because Sophie appeared ill and her head was hanging to the side. However, Ms. Collyer has no formal medical training. Furthermore, Mr.

Wright gave no indication there was an emergency. The evidence shows there was nothing in his demeanour that would lead Ms. Collyer to conclude that Sophie needed to be examined urgently. [ 17 ] As for the delay itself, in an expert opinion written by Dr. Sylvie Lussier, veterinarian, she states that the procedure was carried out in accordance with the rules of the trade and the 12 minute wait is very reasonable when a client arrives with a dog that is not feeling well.

In addition, the cardiac arrest could not have been foreseen: « 12 minutes est un délai très raisonnable lorsqu'on arrive avec un chien qui ne file pas dans une clinique vétérinaire. …Une grande majorité des clients qui s'y présente y sont parce que leur animal est malade. Il n'y avait aucune façon de prévoir que ce chien allait convulser et faire un arrêt cardio-respiratoire dans les secondes qui allait suivre le début de son examen.

Même si ce chien avait été vu en deçà de 12 minutes, il aurait quand même fait sa convulsion et son arrêt cardio-respiratoire et le vétérinaire aurait fait les mêmes manœuvres et le décès aurait été inévitable quand même… Ma conclusion est qu'il n'y a eu aucune faute professionnelle, tout a été fait selon les règles de l'art… » [ 18 ] In sum, the Court understands that Mr. Wright is devastated by the loss of his pet Sophie, who was so very important and precious to him. However, he has not satisfied the Court, by preponderant evidence, that his claim is well founded.

He has not established any fault on the part of Dr. Langill, the clinic or its employee. While the Court has a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Wright's loss, unfortunately the Court cannot grant the remedy that he is seeking. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the action of Glenn Wright against Liesse Animal Clinic inc. and Dr. Robert Langill; THE WHOLE , with costs.

__________________________________ SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 11, 2012