A dog owner has lost a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case against a Victoria doggie daycare after a pet named Chevy was injured during an outdoor walk the owner claimed was “unapproved.”
Jessica Laura Dziadyk took Angels K9 Services to the tribunal seeking $918.28 to cover veterinary bills after Chevy suffered an eye injury in 2021 from some spear grass – a plant that is notorious for the damage it can do to dogs (see the story posted below).
Angels K9 denied any negligence and said it wasn’t responsible for any vet bills and the tribunal decision agreed, dismissing the claim.
The crux of Dziadyk’s claim was that Angels K9 called itself an “indoor” doggie daycare and she thought that meant the dogs would not be taken outside. She said the walk outside was “unapproved” by her.
“Ms. Dziadyk argues Angels K9 is responsible to pay for Chevy’s veterinary treatment and medication because it improperly took Chevy outside when he was supposed to be in indoor care,” reads the tribunal decision. “Ms. Dziadyk says she was unaware and did not approve Chevy being taken outside.”
Angels K9 responded that dogs need to be taken out in order to pee and poop, known in the dog world as to “eliminate.”
“In contrast, Angels K9 says that while indoor care means the dogs are kept inside, they are taken for a 10-minute walk midday to allow the dogs to eliminate,” reads the tribunal decision. “Angels K9 says it is a health requirement to allow the dogs to eliminate, and it would be unsanitary to allow up to 40 dogs to relieve themselves inside the facility. Ms. Dziadyk says she understands dogs have to relieve themselves, but ‘assumed there would be something onsite.’”
Further to this argument, the tribunal said that Dziadyk didn’t make her requirements clear.
“Although the information Angels K9 provided to Ms. Dziadyk when she started using their services does not explicitly state the dogs would be taken outside briefly for elimination purposes, I find this is not unreasonable,” reads the decision. “Additionally, I note the parties’ correspondence does not show that Ms. Dziadyk ever advised she would not like Chevy to go outside, or that she enquired about whether Chevy would be taken outside.”
“I acknowledge Ms. Dziadyk’s concerns about Chevy being outside when she assumed it was a fully indoor daycare, but I note that if it was important to her, she did not inform Angels K9 of her concerns before July 16, 2021,” the decision said. “On balance, I find the evidence shows Angels K9 took reasonable steps to safeguard Chevy in the circumstances, and was not negligent.”