Judge gives vicious dog a second chance
Richard Watts, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, August 26, 2006
A Metchosin dog so vicious it mauled cars has escaped a death sentence despite the efforts of animal-control officers at the Capital Regional District.

In a decision made public on Friday, a B.C. Supreme Court justice has upheld a provincial court judge who allowed Aba, a female Belgian shepherd, to escape destruction if the owner moved her to a farm in Abbotsford.

Justice Robert Johnston ruled the provincial court judge had the discretionary authority to spare the dog from destruction. Now the CRD is considering taking the case to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

CRD lawyer Troy DeSouza said in interviews Friday that Aba's documented attacks go back to 2001 when she bit a jogger without provocation.

Attacks continued. There were several in which the dog tried to get at people in vehicles, leaving scratch marks on paint and bumpers.

In 2005, Aba bit a home-support worker in the calf, breaking the skin and leaving a large, prominent bruise.

DeSouza said the CRD had the dog declared vicious and subsequently sought to have her put down.

The provincial court judge ordered her destruction, but then stayed the order on condition the owner move the dog to Abbotsford -- over the CRD's objections.

"It was essentially just a transfer of the problem," said DeSouza.

Animal-control workers in Abbotsford were not happy to hear about their new resident, he said. And there was some doubt whether the farm could legally take the dog since it might already have exceeded that municipality's legal limit on dogs.

DeSouza said the CRD took the position in court that once a dog has been declared vicious a judge is obligated to follow the recommendation of the animal-control people and order its destruction.

Johnston disagreed, ruling that it is essential to allow judges discretion in order to properly balance the need to protect the public from dangerous dogs with the need to protect dog owners' property rights.

Removing the judge's discretion "would deprive the dog's owner of any meaningful hearing into what should be the essential question -- whether the dog is dangerous enough to warrant its destruction," he wrote.