A B.C. dog owner has been ordered to pay a woman $1,139 more than two years after his dog allegedly bit her in front of her home. A Civil Resolutions Tribunal details a Feb 2024 incident in which Youssif Takla was walking his two dogs off leash when they attacked Weizhen Wang. Wang took the incident to the tribunal seeking $3,148 in compensation, including “$848 for ambulance services, $500 for lost income, $1,200 for future scar removal, and $600 for pain and suffering,” according to the decision. Takla argued that only one of his dogs was involved, and Wang provoked it by “kicking them and hitting them with her umbrella.” “Mr. Takla also argues he already paid Ms. Wang’s only legitimate expense, which was $75 for a rabies vaccine. He says Ms. Wang did not need an ambulance, and he offered to drive her to the hospital,” tribunal member Jeffrey Drozdiak wrote in the decision. The tribunal ultimately ordered Takla to pay Wang for some of her claims, but found there was “simply no evidence” for others. Settling the debate The tribunal was tasked with settling the dispute over whether Takla was responsible for Wang’s injuries after being presented with both arguments, as well as evidence Wang provided of her injuries. Among this evidence was an email she sent to the City of Coquitlam describing the event. According to the decision, Wang was at her garage door when two small white dogs came across her yard and bit her. Takla then arrived, picked up his dogs, and apologized. Wang called 911, and paramedics soon showed up in an ambulance to treat her wounds. Wang was then transported to a clinic via ambulance for a rabies vaccination. Drozdiak was provided with two photos of Wang’s injuries, which depicted small puncture wounds to her left shin and upper right ankle. He described the injuries as appearing “relatively minor.” The tribunal deemed Takla liable for Wang’s injuries because of his negligence in failing to control his dogs by leaving them off leash. “I find Mr. Takla owed Ms. Wang a duty of care to control his dogs,” Drozdiak said, in the decision. Determining what is owed The tribunal next addressed how much of Wang’s requested $3,148 Takla would have to pay. Wang’s $1,200 claim for anticipated scar removal and dermatological treatment, which the tribunal notes she based on “reasonable local market estimates,” was dismissed. Wang said she lost $500 in income because she was unable to work at her normal capacity for two weeks due to the small bite marks on her legs. The tribunal found that she didn’t provide any evidence for what her small business does or how these minor injuries affected her duties, so the claim was ultimately dismissed. She further claimed $600 for pain and suffering, as Wang said she “developed heightened fear and anxiety encountering dogs in public.” The tribunal deemed she was entitled to $150 in nominal damages on this claim. Finally, the tribunal accepted Wang’s claim for $848 in ambulance service fees, regardless of whether Takla felt she needed an ambulance or her decision to decline his offer to drive her to the hospital. “I find it reasonable that Ms. Wang did not accept Mr. Takla’s offer to get in a stranger’s vehicle after being attacked by their dog,” Drozdiak said. The tribunal ordered Takla to pay Wang a total of $1,139 for the approved claims, as well as tribunal fees and prejudgment interest.
