Dog's pool damage leads to neighbour being ordered to pay $620: B.C. tribunal

A backyard pool is seen in this undated stock image. (Shutterstock)

A West Kelowna woman is being ordered by B.C.'s small claims tribunal to pay more than $600 after her son's dog damaged the neighbour's pool.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal decision was posted online Wednesday morning, with tribunal member Sarah Orr explaining the incident unfolded nearly two years ago.

The tribunal heard that, on April 30, 2022, Jill Thompson was looking after her son's dog when the pup got out of her yard and into the neighbour's through a gap in the fence. Susan Greig told the tribunal the dog fell into her pool and damaged it, leading her to claim nearly $4,000 to pay for her insurance deductible, increased insurance premiums and loss of the use of her pool.

"Before the incident, Ms. Greig's pool was partially filled with water and covered by a tarp that was secured with bricks around the pool's perimeter," Orr wrote in her decision. "The tarp had some water pooled on top of it. When the dog fell in the pool it pulled some of the bricks in with it, which Ms. Greig says damaged the pool liner and cover."

While Thompson denied the damage was the dog's fault, Orr said Greig submitted video evidence with her claim, which she says was "persuasive." Orr explained the video showed the dog was in her yard for "at least five minutes" and in the pool for more than three minutes before Thompson entered the yard to get it.

Greig made an insurance claim for the damage and was paid about $7,000, less a $1,000 deductible to replace the pool liner and cover.

Who's responsible?

In her decision, Orr said there are multiple ways a dog owner could he held liable for their pet's actions. In this case, the matter of negligence applies, she said. Orr explained that while Thompson doesn't own the dog, "it was indisputably in her custody and care at the time of the incident." Orr also wrote that Thompson knew – or should have known – about the gap in the fence.

"I find that by allowing (her son's) dog in her backyard, which Mrs. Thompson knew or should have known was enclosed by an insufficient fence, and by allowing the dog to get far enough away from her that she could not see what it was doing for several minutes, Mrs. Thompson failed to maintain reasonable control of the dog," Orr's decision said. "I find she breached the dog bylaw and breached the required standard of care, and so I find she was negligent."

Even so, the tribunal heard a West Kelowna bylaw requires pool owners to have a fence or barrier in place before the pool is filled with water. Greig acknowledged she knew about the gap in the fence for at least two weeks before the incident. Orr concluded Greig breached the building bylaw by "failing to repair the gap in the fence or install a sufficient gate around the gap."

"I have found that both Ms. Greig and Mrs. Thompson were negligent," Orr wrote. "I find there is insufficient evidence to determine whose property the fence is on, but both parties' negligence is founded on the fence's insufficiency."

Entitled to damages?

As part of her claim – which totalled nearly $4,000 – Greig sought a $1,000 reimbursement for her insurance deductible. As she found both women equally responsible for the incident, Orr awarded Greig half that amount.

Greig also claimed a little over $2,300 for increased insurance premiums. Orr said, however, Greig failed to provide evidence to back that amount up, so she was denied that payout.

Another $600 was sought "for the loss of the use of her pool for three months."

"However, she did not explain or provide evidence to show which months of the year she normally uses her pool, or when her pool was repaired after the incident," Orr wrote. "Without more, I find Ms. Greig has failed to prove this aspect of her claim."

In addition to the $500, Thompson was also ordered to pay about $120 to cover post-judgement interest and CRT fees.