IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           Bubba was a 4 pound Yorkshire Terrier. His owners were Richie Ho and Tina Yip. They lived in a townhouse complex in Burnaby. On February 1, 2016, they were outside of their townhouse on the boulevard with Bubba. Ho was holding a leash with Bubba on it. He was also holding their seven-month-old son. Pablo, a 48 pound pit bull terrier ran to Bubba and put Bubba into his mouth causing the leash to come out of Ho’s hand. Ho attempted to pull Pablo off of Bubba and in doing so fell to the ground.  He and his son landed on the grass. Yip saw this happened and was frightened for the safety of her husband and son.

[2]           Scott, Pablo’s owner, ran towards them got Pablo off of Bubba and into his townhouse. Williamson and Ho took Bubba to the veterinarian. Bubba died.

[3]           Williamson and his wife Vanessa De Jong lived in the same townhouse complex as Ho and Yip. There had been one or two prior incidents where Pablo had tried to get Bubba but was not able to do so because he was leashed. Pablo had knocked down the plywood of his yard and run loose in the neighbourhood. Yip felt that Pablo was scary when he came to his owners’ gate. She said that Williamson and De Jong have two dogs that both look like pit bulls.

[4]           Michelle Hadikin works for the Burnaby SPCA. She attended Williamson and De Jong’s house to investigate. She offered to have them surrender Pablo to her but they declined. They agreed to keep Pablo contained, leashed and muzzled while the investigation continued. Pablo was licensed with the City of Burnaby as a border collie, not as a pit bull. The owners said that they did that in order to get house insurance as it was difficult to get insurance if you have a pit bull. They also acknowledged that there were two prior incidents where Pablo had bitten smaller dogs at a dog park.

[5]           The City of Burnaby bylaws define a pit bull as a vicious dog. With this designation are certain requirements, including the dog be leashed and muzzled when off of the owner’s property. The cost of registration for a vicious dog is three times that otherwise. It is of note that later in the evidence, Dr. Kramer, the veterinarian who has treated Pablo, erroneously classified him as a boxer in her recordings.

[6]           The Community Charter, SBC 2003, s. 49 (1) states that a “dangerous dog” is one that “(b) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal, while in a public space or while on private property, other than property owned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog”

[7]           Therefore Pablo is a “dangerous dog”.

[8]           The Community Charter goes on to say what happens to a dog found to be dangerous:

[9]           In this case, an animal control officer has made such an application regarding Pablo.

[10]        Case law has developed that allows courts, when a dog is found to be a “dangerous dog”, to either return the dog to the owner or to a third party as an option to death, pursuant to an order requiring certain things to be in place to protect the community.

[11]        The issue here is whether Pablo should be destroyed or can he be returned to his owners and safely managed in the community.

[12]        The court heard evidence from three witnesses with expertise in dogs and dog behavior. Their evidence was to assist the court with the question of whether there was a reasonable likelihood of safely managing Pablo in the community.

[13]        Alice Fisher is a dog trainer and trains others to train dogs. She was qualified as an expert in dog assessment, training, and behavior. Dr. Rebecca Leger is an animal behavior and welfare scientist and was qualified as an expert in dog assessment, training and behavior. She has developed a psychometric assessment for dogs that find themselves in shelters. She is in private practice where she receives referrals from veterinarians where there is a neurological problem with a dog. Both Ms. Fisher and Dr. Leger have considerable experience with dogs that have behavioral difficulties. Both have been contracted to do work for the SPCA. Both went to the Burnaby SPCA shelter where they met and assessed Pablo. Each used her own dogs to see Pablo’s reaction to other dogs. Dr. Kramer has treated Pablo and two other dogs of the owners.

[14]        Ms. Fisher found that Pablo had low impulse control. It takes very little stimulation to get him past his “threshold”; meaning that he has a low arousal level - gets too excited and aroused by other dogs. He also has a bite inhibition. In her opinion, he would have to be muzzled and leashed in public at all times. Any owner who was responsible for him would need to be trained to communicate with Pablo in a different way that he had been communicated with in the past. Even with medication and proper training for modification of his behavior, it may take six months to three years to change his reaction to other dogs. Few owners could be relied upon to follow through.

[15]        Dr. Leger’s initial assessment was that Pablo suffered from poor impulse control and aggression. In her second assessment, she determined that he was a reactive dog that became highly aroused and stressed. She said dogs that become stressed are likely to show aggression. She said that Pablo has a generalized anxiety, his threshold for arousal is low, and he reacts by “going off” more quickly than other dogs. Her diagnosis was impulse control aggression and generalized anxiety disorder. Her opinion is that aggression is a mental health issue that can be dealt with by medication. Pablo has now started on medication and he is responding well. She recommended that his diet be changed to a low-protein one; he be on two specific medications; he always be restrained on a leash with muzzle and he be trained with positive reinforcement using “clicker training”. She says that he is an easy dog to read meaning that his handler ought to be able to determine when to disengage him in contact with other dogs. She further recommended that to safely manage him at home, all doors to the residence have 4 foot high sprung steel gates; he be placed in a separate room with the door shut whenever his owners leave the house; he be leashed and muzzled whenever outside of the house; and that when he is walked, the handler should only have to control Pablo and not any other dog. When asked about the success rate of this sort of treatment program, Dr. Leger said “when I have set a treatment plan, there is no case where the dog has further caused harm”. She recommended that the court return Pablo to Williamson and De Jong with her recommendations in place. Her prognosis is that with the treatment plan and the owners’ commitment, “it is extremely likely to be successful”.

[16]        Dr. Kramer, the veterinarian, has had Pablo as a patient since 2014, when Williamson and De Jong adopted him at the age of one and a half years. She has had no difficulties with Pablo in her office where he is being many times with a host of problems including an upper respiratory infection. The owners have spent a considerable amount of money dealing with his physical health problems. Williamson brought to Dr. Kramer’s attention the two occasions in which Pablo had bit smaller dogs at the dog park. Dr. Kramer suggested that they hire a trainer to work with Pablo. It is also of note that Dr. Kramer has also treated their other dogs: Griselda, a large Corso Cane and Bowman, their previous pit bull. Both of these dogs needed considerable medical attention and the owners were conscientious in following through with treatment.

[17]        Vanessa De Jong testified that she met her husband Scott Williamson 10 years ago at which time he had Bowman, a pit bull, which eventually had to be put down for health reasons. When this happened, they decided to get another dog to replace him and be a companion to Griselda. Pablo was obtained from a breeder at one and a half years of age. He had been returned to the breeder by his first owner. When he came to their home, Pablo had numerous medical problems. Vet bills for him came to over $14,000.

[18]        Dr. Kramer recommended that Pablo receive training. As they were going to spend the summer at their house in Kelowna, they put him into a training program with a Kelowna trainer named Johnny. Johnny had them acquire a prong collar that hurts a dog when used to correct behavior. With Dr. Ledger’s input, they now realize that this training made Pablo more, not less, “dangerous” or difficult to handle.

[19]        De Jong and Williamson take their dogs on long hikes or runs every day. They testified that, although they have a muzzle for Pablo and know that it is required by the Burnaby by-law, they saw no need for it and did not use it. They never intentionally let him off of their property without being leashed. Pablo enjoyed playing with other dogs at the dog park and, although he plays rough, they had no concern that he would hurt another dog.

[20]        De Jong testified that she and Williamson are fully prepared to follow Dr. Ledger’s treatment plan. They will hire Shelagh Begg, a dog trainer who was trained by Ms. Fisher, to work with them and Pablo. They do not plan to have children and see their dogs as family. “We will do anything we can to bring Pablo home safely”.

[21]        Scott Williamson corroborated the evidence of his wife. He also knew of the Burnaby by-law but did not think that Pablo needed to be muzzled. He stated that he did not register Pablo as a pit bull as to do so might have prevented him from getting house insurance. He testified that he has done everything that Dr. Ledger recommended and is waiting for a final quote from steel fabricators before having the steel gates made and installed. He assured the court that an incident such as this will not happen again. “If I thought it was unmanageable, I would not be here today”.

[22]        As stated above and agreed to by the parties, Pablo is a “dangerous dog” pursuant to the Community Charter. The court must balance the interests of the owners to have Pablo returned to them against the interest of the public to be safe from dogs who are dangerous. In balancing these interests, paramount consideration must be given to public safety.

[23]        The applicant, City of Burnaby, submits that given the aggression of Pablo, the failure of the owners to follow the muzzle by-law and the inherent difficulties in following the treatment plan, the only way to protect the public is to grant the application and have Pablo destroyed.

[24]        The owners submit that they did not appreciate that Pablo posed the danger that he does and, with Dr. Ledger’s assistance, they now recognize that he requires close attention. They promise that they will follow the treatment plan without fail and note that even while in the shelter he is improving with medication.

[25]        I consider the treatment plan as described by Dr. Ledger to be extreme. It will require the owners to spend a considerable amount of their time and money to follow. I agree with Ms. Fisher that few people could be expected to follow the plan and that it may take years to complete - perhaps the rest of the dog’s life. In this case the owners have impressed me that they appreciate what sacrifices on their part the plan will require. They also have impressed me that they are that rare family that is prepared to go through what most would see as extraordinary steps to keep Pablo alive, at home.

[26]        I conclude that the treatment plan that is proposed, if followed, will allow Pablo to be returned to his owners and protect the public. The time, money and effort that the owners will need to commit to the plan is beyond what many families would be prepared or able to commit to but I accept that these owners consider Pablo to be their “son” and will take the somewhat extraordinary steps necessary to follow the plan and keep the community safe.

[27]        Pablo will be returned to Scott Williamson and Vanessa De Jong on the following conditions: