Animal Control Officer for Fraser Valley Regional District v. Carlson, 2022 BCPC 225

Citation: Animal Control Officer for Fraser Valley Regional District v. Carlson 2022 BCPC 225 Date: 20221005 File No: 94271-1 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the Matter of

Section 49 of the Community Charter , SBC 2003 c. 26 and

Section 321 of the Local Government Act , RSBC 2015 c. 1 AND In the Matter of an Application to Destroy "Bruno" a Male Pit Bull Type Dog BETWEEN: THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER FOR THE FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT APPLICANT AND: NICOLE CARLSON RESPONDENT ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G.J. BROWN Counsel for the Fraser Valley Regional District: M. Voell Appearing on their own behalf: N. Carlson Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 3-5, 2002 Date of Judgment: October 5, 2022

[ 1 ] THE COURT : These are my reasons for judgment in the case of Animal Control Officer for the Fraser Valley Regional District versus Carlson. Introduction [ 2 ] In this case, I must rule on the fate of a male pit bull dog named Bruno who is owned by Nicole Carlson. [ 3 ] In the absence of rehoming Bruno with a different and responsible owner, the Animal Control Officer for the Fraser Valley Regional District (ACO) seeks an order to humanely euthanize Bruno.

I should add that there is expert evidence that it will be very difficult to find a suitable new owner for Bruno. [ 4 ] Under s. 49(1) of the Community Charter , SBC 2003 c. 26 , an ACO can seize a dog and apply for an order that the dog be destroyed if: (

a) The dog has killed or seriously injured a person. In this case, although people have suffered injuries in incidents with Bruno, this

section is not the major focus here. (

b) The dog has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal in a public place. In this case, this

section applies as the ACO alleges Bruno has a lengthy history of acting aggressively and, in particular, Bruno was involved in a dog attack in June of 2021 which resulted in the death of a Jack Russell type dog. (

c) The ACO has reasonable grounds to believe that a dog is likely to kill or seriously injure a person. In this case, I have heard expert evidence from Dr. Ledger in that regard in addition to other evidence. [ 5 ] Ms. Carlson, through her support person, Mandy Pringle, argues that Bruno is a dog who is very affectionate towards and protective of his owner and other people. A plan can be put in place to ensure there are no future incidents. They see Bruno as provoked or attacked first in some of the prior incidents.

A number of people I saw in one of the exhibits even signed a petition in Abbotsford to support Bruno as a "net positive dog for our planet." [ 6 ] Ms. Carlson is ill and Bruno is a great comfort for her, although he has been in a compound since January of this year. Issue and Nature of Application [ 7 ] I have already referred to s. 49(10) of the Community Charter . The test on such an application as this is whether, based on the ACO's opinion, Bruno poses an unacceptable risk to the public, that is, whether Bruno is likely to kill or seriously injure in the future.

If so, the dog is dangerous within the meaning of s. 49(10) and must be destroyed, subject to some limited rehoming options: see Santics v. Vancouver (City) Animal Control Officer , 2019 BCCA 294 . [ 8 ] The standard of proof is the civil standard - proof on a balance of probabilities. I have been provided with many Provincial Court cases where the application under s. 49 is conducted by way of affidavit. Here, I have actually heard oral evidence in addition to reviewing affidavits, from the ACO of the Fraser Valley Regional District and from Dr. Ledger, an animal behaviour and welfare scientist.

These witnesses were cross-examined. [ 9 ] I have also heard evidence from five witnesses on behalf of the owner, Ms. Carlson. [ 10 ] I appreciate that ACO Thiessen referred to a number of Animal Control files which were replete with hearsay. I admitted such records as business records under s. 42 of the BC Evidence Act . There was also reliability in much of the Animal Control files as they contained photographs, videos, and veterinary bills in addition to witness accounts. That said, Ms.

Carlson was entitled to and did provide witnesses to possibly refute certain statements contained in the records. [ 11 ] I applied the framework similar to that referred to in Egan v. Andrychuk , 2022 BCCA 110 , where certain statements in the Animal Control files made by Ms. Carlson or her witnesses, or certain allegations therein, were treated as admissions subject to contradiction by oral testimony and cross-examination. [ 12 ] It would simply be unreasonable to require the Animal Control Office to call every witness in the many incident reports.

I tried to ensure trial fairness by, at times, flagging issues which Ms. Carlson’s support person should address. I have also adjusted our court hours to accommodate Ms. Carlson, and I recognize that she is ill. Prior Incidents with Bruno 1. On October 17, 2017, Animal Control received a report that two grey pit bulls were at large near 33239 Hawthorne Avenue, Abbotsford. Animal Control Officer Elechev attended the address and observed an elderly woman with an intact female brindle pit bull and two pit bull puppies. The officer was informed that Ms. Carlson was the owner.

The dogs were not licenced at the time but were licenced later. It is true that Bruno was not specifically identified as one of the puppies. However, the report demonstrates that the pit bulls located at the Hawthorne residence were in the care of other people and Ms. Carlson was not home. The evidence overall is that many people have cared for Bruno. 2. On January 31, 2018, Animal Control Officer Winfield was patrolling the Hawthorne area when she saw a woman named Lisa Hills parked outside. The officer inquired if Ms. Hills knew if Ms. Carlson had observed a tiger brindle pit bull at large. Ms.

Hills indicated that she could quickly ask, so she went to the front door of the Hawthorne residence with her bulldog, Molly. The officer reported that when the front door opened, three pit bulls forced their way out and grabbed Molly, dragging her into the front

yard. The pit bulls were Bebe and the puppies, Sasha and Bruno. Bruno was only three months old at the time. According to the report, Ms. Hills screamed, "Get them off of her" and then dove on top of Molly to protect her. ACO Winfield reported that she ran over with her catchpole and wedged it between one of the pit bulls to pry it off. Bebe let go of Molly and charged the officer and attempted to rip the catchpole from her hands. It was reported that Ms. Carlson attempted to grab one of the pit bulls when Bebe ran back and dug under Ms. Hills, grabbing Molly by the hind end. Ms.

Carlson struggled to pull one of the puppies away, but the puppy charged back to grab Molly by the neck. Bebe turned back and charged at Officer Winfield and was stopped only by the catchpole. Another woman emerged from the house and helped pull the puppies off while the officer kept Bebe at bay. Molly had blood on her hind and swelling around her neck. Ms. Hills is a good friend of Ms. Carlson and she testified. She confirmed Bruno was one of the pit bulls involved; however, she denied that Ms. Carlson opened the front door. She said she was not thinking when she brought Molly to Ms.

Carlson's door and opened it herself. Ms. Carlson confirmed that it was Lisa Hills who opened the door. Ms. Hills agreed that she laid on her dog to protect it. The pit bulls were pack-like and it took 15 to 20 minutes to get them back in the home. Molly was not taken to a vet. Ms. Hills described Ms. Carlson as a responsible dog owner and after this event, Ms. Carlson ultimately got rid of two of the pit bulls. The pit bull puppies did not have collars. Although Ms. Hills took some responsibility for this incident, I am concerned that Ms.

Carlson appeared to have little control over her pit bulls, and matters could have been much worse without the presence of the Animal Control Officer. 3. On November 9, 2018, Animal Control received a call that Mr. Rogan was walking his two dogs on leash down Hawthorne Avenue when two pit bulls charged them. The pit bulls were confirmed to be Bebe and Mustachio, not Bruno. Mr. Rogan sustained a deep gash to his right arm and one of his dogs required considerable veterinary care. A resident at the Hawthorne home confirmed that Bebe and Mustachio escaped from the yard as someone downstairs left the gate open.

Bebe was the aggressor in the incident, and Ms. Carlson said she was not present. On January 9, 2019, Officer Winfield met Ms. Carlson at the Alpine Inn and read aggressive declarations for Bebe and Mustachio aloud. Ms. Carlson advised that both dogs had been rehomed. 4. A woman named Camilla Davies made a written report to Animal Control about an incident on December 29, 2018. She was walking up Hawthorne Avenue with her 11-year-old pit bull and a puppy on leashes. She saw a large brown brindle pit bull with a harness on and no leash racing towards her dogs. The pit bull began to attack her pit bull.

A man who called the attacking dog "Bruno" tried in vain to pull Bruno off her dog. Bruno latched on to her dog's face and ear, and her dog was bleeding from its mouth. Ms. Carlson was not present for this incident, but she believes this incident did not involve Bruno. She did rehome her other two dogs by January 9, 2019. My review of the evidence suggests Bruno was likely the dog involved. Ms. Carlson did not appeal Bruno's aggressive dog designation. In desperation on the day in question, Ms. Davies began punching Bruno and he let go after the fifth or sixth punch.

The vet bills for her dog were just under $1200. The Animal Control Office established that Bruno had come from the 33239 Hawthorne address which was described by some as a crack house, although this characterization plays no role in my decision. In fact, there is also a reference by an ACO to the Hawthorne home being demolished, and the respondent says that is an error. In any event, Animal Officer Winfield learned on January 4, 2019, that Ms. Carlson had been evicted and was staying at the Alpine Inn. She met with Ms.

Carlson on January 18, 2019 at the Alpine Inn and read an aggressive dog declaration for Bruno aloud. The officer explained the leashing, muzzling and containment requirements. Officer Winfield later provided Ms. Carlson with a muzzle to fit Bruno, as Ms. Carlson said she could not afford one. A ticket was issued and not paid. Ms. Carlson did not appear to have a clear recollection of these events on January 18, 2019. 5. The June 4, 2021 incident involving Bruno was the most serious. At that time, ACO Fontana attended at Mayfair Avenue and met with police.

She learned that a tethered dog ran at a pit bull and the dogs got into a fight. Many neighbours got involved and the victim dog appeared to be deceased. Officer Fontana spoke with Mandy Pringle who indicated she was looking after Bruno but was not the owner. She was walking Bruno on a leash. Another dog was tethered in the front yard when it came barking and lunging at Bruno. She, being Ms. Pringle, jumped on the dogs trying to get Bruno off. Other people came with shovels and hit Bruno to get him to release. A person was bitten trying to break up the fight, and his name was Ron Tarlton.

Other witnesses reported that the smaller Jack Russell type of dog was shaken, and that dog ultimately died. Photos were taken at the location of the incident. On January 8, 2021, Ms. Pringle advised that Bruno was going to be shot but she did not actually know. The photos show blood on Ms. Pringle's leg from the victim dog. There may be separate bruising on Ms. Pringle's legs but the photos are unclear. Bruno is present in one of the photos on a leash. Other investigations determined that the victim dog was tethered and the tether could not reach the sidewalk. This is denied by the respondent.

There are a series of photographs of the victim dog with a puncture on its head and large wounds in its throat area. The owner spent thousands of dollars on vet bills. She still believed the dog had a heartbeat immediately following the incident. Animal Control obtained many witness statements. Ms. Pringle actually testified at trial and she confirmed that Bruno caused injuries to the victim dog, but she has a different perspective on many events on June 4, 2021.

She was a roommate of Ms. Carlson on Wavell Lane in Abbotsford. They did enclose the back yard with padlock gates. Ms. Carlson had arranged for dog walkers, but on June 4, 2021, Ms. Pringle decided to walk Bruno as the dog walker did not arrive that day. She put a full harness on Bruno and used a leash. Bruno was not muzzled. Ms. Pringle ultimately walked Bruno along Mayfair Avenue, and she could hear the Jack Russell barking. They had walked by this dog before and she put Bruno on the roadside of the sidewalk. She noticed the Jack Russell was on some type of tether, but she said it reached the sidewalk.

According to Ms. Pringle, the Jack Russell lunged at Bruno and punctured his head. There are no clear pictures of that wound, and she did not tell Animal Control about that wound. Bruno then grabbed the Jack Russell by the scruff of the neck. Ms. Pringle put the leash around her hand and fell to the ground, fearing the Jack Russell's neck would rip. As she screamed for help, neighbours surrounded her and struck Bruno with shovels; however, Bruno did not release his hold on the dog. Ms. Pringle says the shovels hit her leg as well and perhaps even the victim dog.

She tried to open Bruno's mouth by covering his nose. The owner of the Jack Russell tried to pull her dog, and Ms. Pringle yelled that this pulling would rip the dog's neck. Eventually, Bruno released the victim dog but he then grabbed the dog again in its mouth and shook it. Ms. Pringle begged for some water for Bruno, and the police and Animal Control arrived. Ms. Pringle was not aware Bruno was designated aggressive, but she knew Ms. Carlson requested that Bruno be muzzled. Ms. Carlson was not happy with Ms. Pringle, and she left with Bruno to an undisclosed location.

A Randall Ward also testified at this hearing that the Jack Russell was a very yappy and nippy dog. It once nipped his young daughter. He considered the dog to be an ankle biter. He did not see the June 4, 2021 incident. Even by Ms. Pringle's account, this was a prolonged and vicious attack on a smaller dog, and no one was able to prevent Bruno from causing serious injuries to the Jack Russell. Ms. Pringle blames the neighbours for using shovels to attempt to free the smaller dog, but I do not share her perspective. Ms.

Pringle also asserts that it was the people’s pulling of the Jack Russell that caused the major neck wounds. 6. On August 17, 2021, a Mr. Primus was taking his standard poodle out for a walk. He opened the steel door to the apartment building and a pit bull charged toward him and his dog. The pit bull bit his dog in the face, and it took two to three minutes to pry the pit bull off his dog's face. His dog had a rip from its ear to its neck. Someone identified the dog as Bruno. Gary Goulet testified that he was, in fact, Bruno's primary dog walker. He was not homeless.

He said it was a pleasure walking Bruno and he never experienced an incident until August 17, 2021. On August 17, 2021, Mr. Goulet testified that he was walking Bruno with a harness and leash. He said a big black dog ran down the stairs towards Bruno, and it was not Bruno's fault that he reacted and bit the black dog. Pictures of the black dog showed it to be a standard poodle and, in my view, not too large. A video of part of the incident was shown to Mr. Goulet and it shows a different series of events. To begin with, Mr. Goulet is walking Bruno while holding a large box.

In my view, he appeared to have poor control of Bruno. More importantly, the video shows Mr. Goulet looking downwards as Bruno runs off. From another angle it is fairly clear that a poodle peers out, and Bruno runs through a side door of the apartment building. Seconds later, Bruno is clearly holding the poodle down and Mr. Goulet is hitting Bruno and struggling with Bruno. I realize other camera footage may have been available, but I base my findings on what I saw, and I had two camera angles to look at in this hearing. I found Mr. Goulet to be a less than reliable witness and I prefer the video evidence.

I also note that Bruno had already been declared an aggressive dog for 18 months. This incident is almost two months after the Jack Russell incident. [ 13 ] Animal Control was not able to seize Bruno until January 24, 2022. Expert Evidence [ 14 ] Dr. Rebecca Ledger was qualified as an expert on companion animal behaviour and welfare and clinical management of aggressive dogs. She essentially wrote the psychometric tool used by the BCSPCA and many others to identify dog personality traits and aggressiveness.

She has been an expert in over 190 court cases. [ 15 ] In her May 20, 2022 report, her assessment is in two parts, an

interpretation of events leading to Bruno's seizure and a behavioural assessment. I will read from page 4 of the

summary of the behavioural assessment of Bruno: In

summary, Bruno is: fearful and aggressive towards unfamiliar people, suspicious of unfamiliar people, playful with toys, understands basic obedience commands but does not obey when stressed or highly aroused, highly aroused by movement triggers such as running, highly aggressive when meeting unfamiliar passive and assertive dogs. What motivates Bruno to bite people and dogs?

Based on a review of the evidence provided to me and Bruno's behavioural assessment in care, it is my opinion that Bruno is motivated to bite people: when they approach his territory, when they get close to him, when they intervene in a dog attack on their pets involving Bruno. Based on a review of the evidence provided to me and Bruno's behavioural assessment in care, it is my opinion that Bruno is motivated to bite dogs: when they approach his territory, when they get close to him and finally, without provocation . [Emphasis added.]

[ 16 ] Dr. Ledger opines that Bruno should not be returned to Nicole Carlson and either rehoming Bruno with a responsible owner or euthanasia should be considered. Dr. Ledger says at page 5 of the report: Hence, it can be assumed that should Bruno be returned to Nicole Carlson in similar circumstances from which he was seized that the likelihood Bruno being at large, not wearing his muzzle, or behaving aggressively towards a dog, or injuring a dog or a person, is significant. [ 17 ] I appreciate there may be some limitations on assessments of dogs in captivity, but Dr.

Ledger took all of the dog's history into account. Importantly, she used a validated dog assessment tool. [ 18 ] Dr. Ledger concludes in her report by indicating euthanasia is the safest and most humane option. [ 19 ] In her oral evidence she stated a responsible owner for Bruno would be very difficult to find. [ 20 ] Dr. Ledger also reviewed Ms. Carlson's management plan and she found the plan to be vague and inadequate. [ 21 ] Dr. Ledger was not shaken in cross-examination. In my view she took an open-minded approach and stayed in the courtroom to hear respondent evidence. Ms.

Carlson and her dog Bruno [ 22 ] Ms. Carlson has owned Bruno since birth. His mother Bebe had 12 puppies. Ms. Carlson was aware Bruno was a pit bull, but she never saw him involved in a serious incident and he was not prone to escape. Ms. Carlson did rehome Bebe and Bruno's sister Mustachio, because the dogs were acting like a pack. An elderly woman named Faith did watch the dogs early on, but once Ms. Carlson knew that Faith was suffering from Alzheimer's, she did not allow Faith to be responsible for the dogs. [ 23 ] Ms. Carlson has a close bond with Bruno.

Since Bruno was taken she was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension. She has been hospitalized thereafter. Bruno is like a therapy dog to her. [ 24 ] Ms. Carlson's management plan is to have Bruno live with her at her parents' home as one big family. I should add that the conditions of her management plan are in both Exhibits 3 and 4. Right now she lives elsewhere. Ms. Carlson says the Wavell Lane house was very secure for Bruno with a fence and padlock. [ 25 ] Ms. Carlson did recall getting at least an aggressive declaration for Bebe and Mustachio when she was staying at the Alpine Inn in January of 2019.

She says she herself is not strong enough to walk Bruno, but she has given those duties to persons like Mr. Goulet. [ 26 ] After the June 4 and August 17, 2021 incidents, Ms. Carlson agreed that she felt authorities were going to take Bruno away from her. She stayed at a number of homes. Is Bruno a Dangerous Dog and Should he be Euthanized? [ 27 ] I have already set out the test to be applied under s. 49(10). I must ask if the Animal Control Officer's opinion is reasonable that Bruno is likely to kill or seriously injure in the future.

As stated in the Santics case cited above, the future safety of the public is paramount. When I examine Bruno's past behaviour and the owner's ability to control that behaviour, I find there is a significant likelihood Bruno could kill or seriously injure an animal or human in the future. Indeed, the incidents got worse as time progressed. [ 28 ] Bruno was just a pup when he and his mother attacked Molly. Ms. Hills had no recourse but to collapse on her dog to save it, and Ms. Carlson could not control Bebe or the puppies. [ 29 ] In late 2018, Bruno attacked Ms.

Davies' dog and would not release his hold until after five or six punches. [ 30 ] The June 4, 2021 incident was horrific and Bruno would not release his lockjaw grip on the Jack Russell, notwithstanding the fact he was being hit on the head with shovels. Bruno eventually released his grip only to grab the Jack Russell again and essentially shake the dog to death. [ 31 ] I also note that Ms. Carlson is in ill health and Bruno has had many caretakers. None of them appear to be able to handle Bruno, as evidenced by Mr.

Goulet's complete inability to control Bruno as he attacked a poodle. [ 32 ] Analyzing fault in these incidents is not useful. The Jack Russell may have been the first to attack in the June 2021 incident, but he is an ankle biter. Bruno is a large, strong dog who can cause serious harm. [ 33 ] The test here is largely a prospective one. On a balance of probabilities, I find the Animal Control Officer has reasonable grounds to believe Bruno is likely to kill or injure in the future. I also have Dr. Ledger's opinion to that effect. [ 34 ] Moreover, Dr.

Ledger identifies that the likelihood of Bruno behaving aggressively is significant if he is returned to Ms. Carlson. Ms. Carlson has led a somewhat transitory lifestyle with many people caring for Bruno. Some had no knowledge he was deemed aggressive by the Animal Control Officers. [ 35 ] In terms of a management plan for Bruno, Ms. Carlson proposes that Bruno reside with her at her parents' home in a rural part of Abbotsford. She has, as I have said earlier, listed certain conditions to be followed in Exhibits 3 and 4. [ 36 ] Based on all the evidence that I have heard, Ms.

Carlson's management plan, even as revised, is vague at best and history is a good predictor of the future. Even after receiving the aggressive dog designation, Ms. Carlson often allowed others to walk Bruno without a muzzle, and she essentially hid Bruno after the Jack Russell incident.

[ 37 ] Dr. Ledger herself was not satisfied with the management plan as originally presented. [ 38 ] Using some of Dr. Ledger's criteria for rehoming, I do see concerns with Ms. Carlson complying with conditions in a management plan. For example, Dr. Ledger indicates that an owner should have an excellent understanding of a management plan for Bruno. Ms. Carlson does not have an excellent understanding of the risks presented by Bruno, and even after she received the aggressive dog declaration, she did not take the necessary steps. [ 39 ] Dr. Ledger also pointed to 100 percent commitment to a management plan.

In the past, Ms. Carlson could not comply with conditions as set out in the aggressive dog declaration letters. [ 40 ] Dr. Ledger felt that Bruno would need a very secure and stable home, preventing Bruno's escape and so on. In addition to that, Dr. Ledger also required that all the people living in the home be equally responsible, compliant and committed to managing Bruno. Based on the evidence I heard, Ms. Carlson has not had one single stable home. She has been quite transient. I heard from no other witnesses regarding the management plan, such as her parents. [ 41 ] Dr.

Ledger also identified that major financial resources may need to be required or at least available. I do not see that with Ms. Carlson. [ 42 ] Finally, Dr. Ledger had pointed out that any management plan would require Bruno to be taught to wear a muzzle and not to be permitted to be walked with any other dog until such a time that it was safe to do so. Past events have shown that Ms. Carlson could not comply with such a requirement. [ 43 ] These decisions are not easy. I have owned five dogs in my lifetime. According to the case law, I have no authority to make a conditional order; again, see the Santics case.

I must either find Bruno dangerous and order his destruction, or find Bruno not dangerous and order his return to Ms. Carlson. [ 44 ] On an emotional level, I appreciate Bruno gave Ms. Carlson comfort, especially during her illness. But it also must have been very emotional for the owner of the Jack Russell to see her dog basically die in the jaws of Bruno. [ 45 ] Based on all the above analysis and under s. 49 of the Community Charter , I find that Bruno is a dangerous dog and he must be destroyed by being humanely euthanized. I understand Mr.

Voell has a form order that I will sign and I will dispense with the respondent's signature. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 46 ] THE COURT: A declaration that Bruno is a dangerous dog is there in the order. That he be humanely euthanized by or under the supervision of a licenced and qualified veterinarian no sooner than October 19th. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)