Date Issued: May 6, 2021

File: SC-2020-008755

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Oddleifson v. Wood, 2021 BCCRT 476

Between:

JEFFREY ODDLEIFSON

Applicant

And:

DEVON WOOD

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about a dog’s injury. The applicant, Jeffrey Oddleifson owns a dog named Kalesh. He says that Kalesh was bitten and injured by a dog named Groot, who is owned by the respondent, Devon Wood. Mr. Oddleifson asks for an order that Mr. Wood pay him $1,501.08 in veterinary costs and $1,150 and physical and emotional damages. Mr. Wood denies that Groot bit Kalesh or that he is responsible for the damages Mr. Oddleifson claims.

2.      The parties are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

4.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

5.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

6.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

7.      The issue is this dispute is whether Mr. Wood is responsible for Kalesh’s injuries and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      In a civil proceeding like this one, an applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer to only the evidence and argument that I find relevant and necessary to provide context for my decision.

9.      The parties stayed in neighbouring campsites in Tofino during July 2020. Mr. Oddleifson says that Mr. Wood’s two dogs were “extremely aggressive” to other dogs in the area and that Mr. Wood failed to control them or respect his request to keep the dogs away. The parties agree that Groot and Kalesh had an interaction that Mr. Wood described as a “face off” when they first encountered each other. Mr. Oddleifson and Mr. Wood say that they tried to keep the dogs away from each other after this, but both admit that their dogs were unleashed at various times.

10.   On July 25, 2020, the parties were at the same beach. Mr. Oddleifson says that Groot “attacked” Kalesh twice, and that Groot bit Kalesh during the second interaction. Mr. Wood admits that there were interactions between the dogs, but denies that Groot bit Kalesh. He says that, at the time of the second interaction, Groot was “on-leash, laying down” when an unleashed Kalesh “invaded their space”.

11.   Mr. Oddleifson says that he discovered that Kalesh was injured the next day. Kalesh was treated by a veterinarian on July 28 and July 29, 2020 for a puncture wound and the surgical repair of the skin and underlying muscle. Mr. Oddleifson paid two invoices for $345.45 and $1,155.63 for this veterinary treatment.

12.   Mr. Oddleifson contacted Mr. Wood through a mutual friend to ask for compensation, and says that Mr. Wood acknowledged that Groot bit Kalesh. Mr. Wood says he offered to pay $200 towards the vet bill “to avoid a socially awkward situation” given that he and Mr. Oddleifson have friends in common. Mr. Wood says that he expressed sympathy for Kalesh, but never accepted responsibility for the injuries or expenses.

13.   In an exchange of text messages with Mr. Oddleifson, Mr. Wood stated “I take responsibility for my dog and his actions”. In the context of the messages, I find that this was a general statement and not an admission that Groot bit Kalesh.

14.   In British Columbia, there are three ways a dog owner may be liable for their dog’s actions: occupier’s liability, scienter and negligence. Before I consider whether any of these concepts apply to these circumstances, I must determine whether the evidence before me shows that Groot caused Kalesh’s injury

15.   Although there is no dispute that Kalesh interacted with Groot and later had a wound that required veterinary care, this does not establish that Groot caused the injury. Mr. Oddleifson’s perception that Groot was aggressive and poorly controlled is not determinative. Mr. Wood says that it is speculative to blame Groot for Kalesh’s injury, and suggests that another dog or wild animal could have been responsible.

16.   The evidence contains statements from some individuals who did not witness the beach interactions. While these statements provide information about other events that occurred between the dogs and the parties, Mr. Oddleifson does not claim that these events resulted in Kalesh’s injury. I find that only information about the second interaction between Groot and Kalesh on July 25 is relevant to my analysis.

17.   I find that, at the time of the second interaction between Groot and Kalesh, Groot was leashed and Kalesh was unleashed. At that point, Mr. Oddleifson and Mr. Wood were nearby playing a game but, based on their statements, I accept that neither saw the second interaction occur.

18.   Mr. Oddleifson’s partner, RB, was with Kalesh on the beach. According to RB’s statement, the second interaction occurred when Kalesh moved away from her when she was not looking. When Kalesh walked near Groot, RB says that Groot was “able to lunge out and bite”. However, RB did not say that she saw this occur. She stated that Kalesh “seemed okay” afterwards.

19.   Another witness, KC, was sitting with Groot and Mr. Wood’s other dog and holding their leashes at the time of the second interaction. According to KC’s statement, Kalesh darted towards them and startled Mr. Wood’s dogs. She described Groot “jumping up” and there being a “commotion”. KC says she pulled the leash to settle Groot as Kalesh continued on towards another dog on the beach. KC did not describe any physical contact between the dogs.

20.   As noted, the parties were a short distance away from the interaction and RB admits that she was not looking when it occurred. KC was the only witness who saw the entire interaction, and she did not describe any physical contact between the dogs. None of the witnesses or the parties described any yelps or expressions of pain from Kalesh during or following the second interaction. Further, there is no indication that Mr. Oddleifson found any blood on Kalesh until the next day despite what RB described as “significant damage”. While Groot may have lunged towards Kalesh, I find that the evidence does not support the conclusion that this interaction involved a bite.

21.   Based on the evidence before me, and keeping in mind that Mr. Oddleifson bears the burden of proof, I find that he has not established that Groot caused Kalesh’s injuries. Accordingly, I find that it is not necessary for me to consider whether Mr. Wood is liable for Mr. Oddleifson’s claimed damages. I dismiss this claim.

22.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT generally will order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Oddleifson was not successful, I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of CRT fees and dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

23.   I dismiss Mr. Oddleifson’s claims and this dispute.