This case is about the question of conditional orders for dangerous dogs instead of destroying the dog.

Capital Regional District v. Freiya Kuo,
2006 BCSC 1282
August 22, 2006...
Docket 05/3996


[1] The Capital Regional District ("CRD") appeals an order of a Provincial Court judge which in effect ordered the destruction of a dog owned by Ms. Kuo but stayed the order on conditions which he believed would adequately protect the public from the dog. The CRD argues that the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction under s. 49(10) of the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26, to grant a conditional order for destruction, that there is jurisdiction only to confirm or deny a destruction order proposed by an animal control officer.

[2] The CRD argues that the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court is limited to an inquiry into whether the animal control officer believed that the dog in question came within the statutory definition of "dangerous dog" as being likely to kill or seriously injure a person under s. 49(1)(c), and, if so, whether there were reasonable grounds for the belief.

[3] The outcome of this appeal will not affect the fate of this particular dog. If it succeeds on the appeal, the CRD does not seek the dog’s destruction, but is content to allow the provisions of the impugned conditional order to remain in this case. The CRD’s interest lies in having it determined whether such orders will be available in future applications of a similar nature. The CRD argues that the jurisdictional issue raised by the decision under appeal is important not just for this case but across the province, and for that reason this appeal should be entertained and decided. I agree.