Woman who returned puppy due to ear infection not entitled to a refund, B.C. tribunal rules

A Shih Tzu is pictured in this undated photo. (iStock)

British Columbia's small claims tribunal has ruled that a woman who bought a puppy from a breeder is not entitled to a refund after she returned the animal because it had an ear infection.

Shelley Ellis took breeder Teresa Armich to the Civil Resolution Tribunal seeking reimbursement of $4,725.27, which included the price of the puppy and the costs incurred by having the dog.

Ellis claimed her veterinarian diagnosed the puppy with allergies, which could be a chronic issue, and sought a refund after returning the animal.

The breeder countered that the puppy is healthy and has no chronic health issues, noting that under the terms of their signed purchase contract, the buyer is not entitled to a refund of the $3,500 purchase price nor reimbursement for expenses.

Ellis told the tribunal she noticed the dog was scratching both its ears approximately four days after she brought the dog home. She took the puppy to a Vancouver Island animal hospital a month later, and evidence presented to the tribunal shows the veterinarian diagnosed the animal with a yeast infection in both ears, but found the dog was "otherwise healthy."

Ellis emailed Armich the next day to report the infection, saying the vet told her that if the itching reoccurred within four weeks it might be a chronic, life-long allergy. A week later she emailed the breeder, saying the itch had "started again" and if the infection hadn't cleared up when she saw the vet again, she would return the puppy "as per our contract."

Armich asked Ellis to bring the puppy back to her as soon as possible so her own veterinarian could examine the animal.

In the meantime, Ellis brought the dog back to the animal hospital the next week, where the vet found the prescribed ear medication had "worked wonders" for the first week but the symptoms had returned, according to tribunal decision.

The veterinarian diagnosed a persistent infection in the right ear and prescribed more medication. Ellis emailed the breeder the next day to say she would continue with the medication until the dog's next vet appointment nine days later. But she sent another email later the same day to say she had decided to return the dog.

Armich agreed to take the puppy back and has kept the dog in the year and a half since.

'No money will be returned'

In reaching her decision Wednesday, tribunal member Kate Campbell found the initial purchase contract for the dog was binding. The terms of the contract most relevant to the dispute stipulate that the "breeder will offer a one-year health guarantee against genetic defects such as heart, lung or epilepsy" and the "breeder reserves the right to have the said puppy checked for said defect and condition verified by her local vet."

Furthermore, the agreement states that "upon confirmation of said defect, (the) puppy may be returned and a replacement puppy offered at the next available litter. No money will be returned."

The tribunal found no evidence that the puppy's ear condition was genetic or allergy-related, as the buyer claimed. The animal hospital records show the infection was classified as "persistent," rather than chronic or permanent, Campbell said.

The breeder submitted evidence from two veterinarians who examined the dog after it was returned to her. Both vets found the puppy was healthy, with no medical issues. A report from one of the vets specifically stated that both ears were clear, with no signs of irritation or infection, according to the decision.

"Based on the veterinary records, including those provided by the applicant, I find the applicant has not proved the puppy has a genetic defect," Campbell said. "This is the only health condition the contract guarantees against."

In evidence submitted to the tribunal, Ellis told the breeder she did not want a different puppy, which is the only remedy available under their contract. There is also nothing in the contract that entitles the buyer to a refund of puppy-related expenses, such as vet bills, the decision says.

"It is unreasonable to expect that an animal will always have perfect health," Campbell said. "Like humans, puppies may periodically get infections. The veterinary records in evidence do not suggest any permanent or life-altering health condition."

Because the buyer has not asked for the dog back, the breeder can keep both the dog and the original payment, the tribunal ruled, dismissing the buyer's claim to a refund and reimbursement for expenses.