B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has rejected a Surrey man’s claim that his strata’s notice about his dogs being aggressive was harassing, bullying and defamatory.
Tribunal member Mark Henderson said in a Jan. 29 decision the dispute was about Michael Willis’ dogs and another dog in the strata.
Willis sought the “reinstatement of his dogs as residents” and $200 in reimbursement for a fine that the strata levied against him for not registering his dogs with the strata.
Further, Willis wanted $4,776 for damages suffered after the strata posted a public notice in the strata lobby warning other residents of the dogs’ aggressive behaviour.
“[Willis] says the notice was harassing, bullying and defamatory,” Henderson said.
Henderson said the strata asserted there was no evidence the dogs were ever registered with the strata as required under its bylaws.
“The strata also says it posted the notice for the safety of all owners and the information in the public notice was the minimum required to inform residents of the risk of the dogs’ aggressive behaviour,” Henderson said.
Henderson said the strata provided video of a May 2, 2023, incident in which Willis was in the elevator with his two bulldogs.
When the elevator stopped on the 20th floor, another resident holding a dog in their hands was waiting to get on the elevator.
Henderson said Willis reached over to press a button on the elevator.
“As he was reaching over to the panel, one of his dogs lunged at the dog that had not entered the elevator,” Henderson said. “The video shows one of [Willis’] dogs pulling the other dog out of its owner’s hands. Both of the [Willis’] dogs exited the elevator, presumably to chase after the other dog.
“There is a limited view after that point but the camera angle from inside the elevator shows the other resident fell over while trying to protect their dog," he said.
Henderson accepted the video depicted what happened.
“I find that the incident between the dogs on May 2, 2023, was a significant incident that required some response from the strata,” he said.
Indeed, the strata sent a letter to Willis eight days later, saying the dogs had to be removed from the strata by May 24, 2023.
Willis said he complied but the strata said it was not informed.
Willis replied May 11 by email and proposed muzzling his dogs as a solution to address any problematic behaviour in public areas.
“The strata management company replied on May 12, 2023, advising that the matter had been reported to the municipality’s animal control and was no longer in the strata’s jurisdiction,” Henderson said.
Willis claimed the strata’s actions had discriminated against him on the basis of pet ownership, were a misleading and unprofessional communication, and that the warning notice violated his privacy.
However, Henderson said the strata had an obligation to warn other residents that an incident had occurred.
And, the tribunal member said, “Pet ownership is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code. So, I find the applicant cannot claim discriminatory treatment based on pet ownership.”
Willis claimed the dogs had not been designated as aggressive by the municipality.
“Based on my review of the video footage, I agree with the strata that the dogs’ conduct was aggressive regardless of whether the municipality had previously designated them as aggressive,” Henderson said. “So, I find that the strata’s use of the adjective ‘aggressive’ was reasonable in the circumstances and was not misleading.”
Willis also disputed the warning notice on the basis that it said a resident had sustained an attack.
“Based on the video of the incident, I find that one of the applicant’s dogs grabbed the other resident’s dog’s tail while it was in the resident’s arms. The resident was also knocked over in the commotion that followed,” Henderson said, adding the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over privacy breaches.
Finally, Henderson found there no evidence the strata issued the fine or Willis paid and dismissed that claim.
Henderson dismissed the case.
