'Candy' the Pomeranian sparks feud between B.C. neighbours that ends in small claims case

A file photo shows a Pomeranian. The dog pictured is not the dog mentioned in this article.

A tiny dog was at the centre of a legal battle between neighbours that played out in B.C.'s small claims tribunal last week.

The dispute between next-door neighbours was heard by a member of the province's Civil Resolution Tribunal on Feb. 16.

The case centred around "Candy," a Pomeranian-mix dog alleged to have done some damage when a neighbour entered her owner's yard.

According to a summary of the claim from tribunal member Kristin Gardner, the neighbour who took the case to the CRT entered the yard one day in June 2019, and was bit by Candy "several times on the foot and leg."

Janice Richardson tried to get $1,000 out of her neighbour for pain and suffering.

Candy's owner, Mi Nguyen, told the tribunal it's never been proven that the dog bit Richardson, and said even if she was injured, it would likely have only been minor scratches.

An account from the dog owner's mother, who witnessed what happened, included that she did not see Richardson get bitten, but that she'd heard the dog barking and sent Candy inside. She said she saw "three small wounds" on Richardson's feet, which could have been scratches, and that Richardson laughed them off.

It is not disputed that the mother apologized and offered Richardson a bandage, and that that offer was denied.

There is some discussion by the tribunal member about whether the mother actually wrote her statement herself, given that it is written in the third person and signed electronically, but it was accepted as what the woman told Nguyen about the incident.

But the case wasn't actually before the CRT because of the bite. The main issue was whether Richardson had waited too long to prove her claim.

The Limitation Act allocates a two-year period for most claims, and when that period expires, the right to bring the claim disappears, Gardner explained in her reasons for her decision.

Richardson, who filed her application with the CRT in June 2021, said she did so intentionally one day before the period expired.

But Nguyen said it's likely the incident would have happened before the date Richardson claims. There's some discrepancy about the timeline, but evidence presented in the case swayed Gardner to side with the dog's owners, meaning Richardson's claim was filed too late.

Because of that, the "substance" of her claim was not addressed, and the entire case was dismissed.