Photo: Google Street Watch
A Kelowna man has correctly appealed a $1,000 bylaw high-quality right after he was convicted of creating his one particular-calendar year-aged poodle to turn out to be a “dangerous dog,” next an altercation with an additional canine at Okanagan Higher education in 2020.
Ian Sisett was doing exercises his 3 substantial poodles off-leash on a area at Kelowna’s Okanagan Faculty on the morning of Jan. 29, 2020, when the three canine ran up to a tiny doggy, Spike, who was going for walks on a nearby sidewalk.
Whilst Spike’s proprietor, Melanie Michaels, was ready to chase away Sisett’s two other canine Charlie grabbed Spike’s head and shook him, fracturing the modest dog’s jaw. Michaels testified Spike’s injuries cost her additional than $6,000 in vet bills.
In a determination final July, the decide ruled that Charlie was a “dangerous dog” and that Sisett “caused or permitted” him to turn out to be a unsafe pet dog by allowing him to be off-leash. Sisett was convicted of the bylaw offence and fined $1,000.
In a the latest hearing, Sisett appealed the bylaw conviction on a number of grounds.
“He asserts that the bylaw officer, the RDCO, Ms. Michaels and the Judicial Justice were being all biased from him,” wrote Justice Gary Weatherill in his modern choice.
“He says the Judicial Justice permitted inadmissible evidence to be led by the RDCO above his objections and denied him the prospect to cross-examine witnesses or guide evidence of his individual to counter that evidence.”
But whilst Justice Weatherill explained there was “no merit” to Sisett’s allegations of unfairness, the judge in the long run granted the enchantment.
As described in the bylaw, Justice Weatherill said Charlie really should be labelled a hazardous pet, as the pet severely wounded Spike in the incident. But Justice Weatherill dominated that Sisett did not “cause or permit” Charlie to come to be hazardous just simply because he permitted him to operate off leash.
“Of important significance to a [Section 36 of the RDCO Responsible Dog Ownership Bylaw] offence is a need that Mr. Sisett possibly actively participated in Charlie getting a perilous dog, or passively unsuccessful to just take steps to prevent Charlie from getting to be a harmful dog,” Justice Weatherill said.
“Allowing Charlie to be off-leash when he ought to not have been, with no a lot more, is not active participation or acquiescing in him starting to be a dangerous pet dog.
“Before 1 can ’cause or permit’ a puppy to turn out to be a unsafe pet, there ought to be a degree of energetic participation or handle in encouraging a doggy to be dangerous (as for case in point, actively education or encouraging a doggy to attack animals or folks and/or very seriously injure them), or a state of indifference or acquiescence in recognizing a doggy has a propensity in the direction of violence and performing very little about it.”
Justice Weatherill pointed out the evidence in the circumstance was that Charlie was a playful one particular-calendar year-outdated dog, and the incident was a “one-off party.”
As a final result, Justice Weatherill overturned Sisett’s conviction.