Dog ‘likely’ to seriously injure, kill a person if not euthanized: B.C. judge

A Rottweiler-mastiff is shown in this photo. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. judge has ordered a Rottweiler-mastiff to be euthanized, saying if the dog is returned to its owners the animal is “likely to seriously injure or kill another person.”

An animal control officer of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District applied to have the dog—named Luna—declared dangerous, and the judge’s decision that the animal fit the criteria was handed down after a five-day trial last month.

The dog’s owners, Colin and Sandra Burger, opposed the application and argued for the animal to be returned to their care.

“This is about Luna and this is about Luna’s owners. The responsibility for the decision I make today is, first and foremost, with Luna’s owners who have had ample time to reflect the proper attitude and make sure that she is safely kept, and that the community is safe, the judge wrote.

“This has simply not happened.”

The court heard about incidents where Luna attacked and seriously injured people, with the decision noting the legal definition of that is “an injury that punctures the skin and requires medical attention.”

In June 2024, a 75-year-old man who was cycling past the Burgers’ property testified a dog jumped the fence and knocked him off his bicycle. He testified the dog tried to bite his face, and ended up biting his hand when he put it up to shield himself. The bite wound required three stitches, according to the decision.

Two days later, a woman walking by the property reported a dog had jumped the fence and bit her arm, the court heard.

RELATED STORIES:

• Pit bull involved in fatal attack on neighbour’s dog must be euthanized, B.C. judge rules
• Pit bull cross that mauled man, killed cat must be euthanized, B.C. court rules
• Kelowna man did not cause poodle to become dangerous: judge

The Burgers were then visited by animal control officers and warned of the possibility an application could be made to have Luna declared dangerous, the decision said.

But four months later, another attack was reported by a woman who was cycling past the Burgers’ property.

“The big black dog bit/grabbed my right wrist and pulled me off the bike so now I was laying on the road (and) all I could think of was that this was it for me and I curled up in a ball,” the woman testified. Her injuries included five puncture wounds, one requiring two stitches.

Luna was impounded a week after that, following a town hall meeting attended by dozens of people in the community where the dog was “discussed,” the judgment said.

The owners argued they would be able to manage the risk Luna posed by taking measures including constructing an “electrified enclosure” where the dog would be kept when it was not in the house.

While the law allows for a dangerous dog to be returned with an adequate safety plan, the judge was not convinced the Burgers would be able to “eliminate or mitigate” the risk the dog posed—noting their behaviour during the proceedings as one factor that gave the court pause.

“I have also considered, very importantly, the attitude of the Burgers here and things that they expressed not only to the animal control officers, but also to the people that were injured, and in court,” the judge wrote.

“Mrs. Burger, for example, describes the injuries suffered by these people as ‘minor injuries;’ describes Luna as ‘not dangerous;’ uses terms such as Luna being ‘imprisoned,’ and being ‘murdered.’ These are all emotional terms that cause the court some concern. They show a minimization of the dangerousness that Luna has presented in the community. They also deflect the blame of what is happening to Luna from themselves onto others.”

The judge ruled that the dog could not be returned to the couple and ordered Luna to be euthanized within 14 days of the decision.