A B.C. dog owner who sued another dog owner for $2,552 after his dog bit her dog has been awarded $165.
Ellen Atkin filed a complaint against Glen Kurack with B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal saying his dog bit hers.
In a Feb. 6 decision, tribunal member Alison Wake said Atkin claimed the damages for veterinary expenses and pain and suffering for alleged “character assassination.”
In a counterclaim, Kurack alleged Atkin’s dog bit his leg and attacked his dog. He also says his arm broke during the incident.
Kurack said he missed work because of the injuries and claimed $3,200 in lost wages.
Atkin denied responsibility for Kurack’s injuries.
Atkin and Kurack agreed there was an altercation involving their two dogs and Kurack on April 21, 2021.
The pair had agreed to meet with their dogs on a local train service road.
Kurack said he was walking towards Atkin’s vehicle while holding his dog’s collar. He said Atkin’s dog started barking aggressively, so he stopped walking and asked Atkin not to let her dog out of the vehicle.
“Mr. Kurack says that Ms. Atkin released her dog anyway, and it ran towards him and his dog. He says his arm broke when his dog broke free of his grasp, and Ms. Atkin’s dog bit his leg,” Wake said.
Atkin, however, said Kurack and his dog approached her and her dog when her dog was already outside of her vehicle.
Atkin said Kurack’s dog sniffed her dog for a moment and then “chomped his jaws around her dog’s neck.”
She denied her dog bit Kurack’s dog, but agreed her dog bit Kurack’s leg.
“There were no other witnesses to the incident,” Wake said.
Tribunal findings
What Wake found was that dog owners have a standard of care to each other.
Atkin argued Kurack’s arm was broken before the biting incident.
The tribunal found Kurack did not adequately restrain or control his dog to prevent it from biting Atkin’s dog.
“So, I find Mr. Kurack is liable in negligence,” Wake said.
Still, the tribunal found Atkin’s actions contributed to the incident.
“Her dog was undisputedly not leashed as Mr. Kurack approached with his dog. Ms. Atkin also does not dispute that her dog began to bark when Mr. Kurack and his dog approached. I find this should have alerted Ms. Atkin to the possibility of an altercation and prompted her to take steps to restrain her dog.”
Wake said veterinary expenses should be split but found Atkin 70 per cent responsible meaning she could have 30 per cent of her costs.
Wake dismissed Kurack’s claim.
‘Character assassination’
Atkin claimed $2,000 in “pain and suffering” damages due to what she says was a “campaign of character assassination” against her and her dog.
Atkin asserted that after the incident, people in the community began acting annoyed or afraid of her dog.
Atkin said she believed that was due to Kurack allegedly spreading false information about her dog.
“She says others made erroneous complaints about her dog, which ultimately led to her having to re-home the dog,” Wake said.
She said such a claim falls under the heading of slander or libel, cases where the tribunal has no jurisdiction.
As such, those claims were dismissed.
