Owner whose dogs mauled neighbour’s cat was not negligent: B.C tribunal

A Persian cat is shown in this stock photo. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. woman whose Persian cat had to be euthanized after it was attacked by two dogs has failed to convince a tribunal her neighbour was liable for the mauling, according to a recent decision.

Carla Ann Pederson filed a claim with B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal, seeking damages of $737.06 as reimbursement for emergency veterinary bills and $2,000 for the cost of a replacement cat after what proved to be a fatal incident last year.

“She heard rustling outside her home and went out to see two large dogs — a Cane Corso and a German Shepherd type dog — attacking and mauling her cat on her driveway,” tribunal member Micah Carmody’s decision said.

“She was able to scare off the dogs, put her cat in a carrier, and drive to the emergency vet. The cat’s injuries were extensive, and Mrs. Pederson made the difficult decision to euthanize the cat.”

Pederson did not know the dogs and took to social media to try to find their owner, the decision said. The information she got in response led her to identify the dogs’ owner as Ludovic Bedard, according to the decision.

Bedard, in response to Pederson’s claim said his dogs were not responsible and he was not liable.

In finding it was more likely than not that Bedard’s dogs were the ones that attacked the cat, the tribunal considered evidence from the Cowichan Valley Regional District’s animal control department.

Bedard had been issued six tickets for three incidents in which he breached a local bylaw by allowing his dogs to “run at large” the decision noted, adding one of those incidents was the one involving Pederson’s cat.

Bedard challenged those tickets but was unsuccessful, the decision said.

“I reach the same conclusion that it was Mr. Bedard’s dogs who attacked Mrs. Pederson’s cat,” Carmody wrote.

“I put little weight on Mr. Bedard’s photos of his dogs cuddling with his cats, as I find it is obvious that dogs may behave differently around familiar cats in their home, as contrasted with unfamiliar cats encountered outdoors.”

In order to be held responsible for his dogs’ actions, the tribunal would have had to find Bedard was negligent.

Demonstrating Bedard violated a bylaw by allowing his dogs to be at large at the time of the attack was not enough to establish negligence, Carmody said, adding that the legal standard required Pederson to prove the dogs had a “propensity for dangerous behaviour.”

While Pederson did submit evidence that Bedard’s dogs were declared “dangerous” by the regional district and that they attacked another pet — those things were found to be irrelevant because they happened after the attack on Pederson’s cat.

“Those events are not relevant in establishing that Mr. Bedard should have known, before the June 25, 2024, attack, that his dogs were dangerous and should not have been roaming free,” Carmody wrote.

The tribunal also noted a dog’s breed can not be considered evidence in cases like these.

“The courts have been clear that a dog’s breed, by itself, does not establish that it had a propensity for aggression,” Carmody wrote.

Given the evidence, the tribunal found Pederson had not established a propensity for aggression “before the unfortunate attack on her cat.”

The claim was dismissed.

RELATED STORIES:

• ‘Don’t know what a Proton Pack is’: B.C. tribunal sides with senior in ‘Ghostbusters’ replica dispute
• B.C. dog owner awarded damages after learning pet older than requested
• Dog owner takes sitters to B.C. tribunal after pet goes missing