If you want to be a lawyer, you'd better be prepared to spend
more time doing research than you do in the courtroom. This is especially
true for young lawyers.
This summary contains the key points from the
Kuypers vs. Langley decision. The judgment was written by J. Hogarth on Jan.
6, 1992.
On April 10, 1991, an unnamed pedestrian walking
along 204th St. in the township of Langley was bitten in the rear by a dog.
The bite broke skin and caused bruising. The man complained to the township
authorities.
Enforcement officers Nelson and Green went to the home
of Darrin and Diane Kuypers, who owned the dog that allegedly did the biting.
They attempted to seize the dog, named Robbie, citing the township's
Dog Licensing and Large Animal Control and Impounding Bylaw, 1988 No. 25776.
The Kuypers argued strenuously against the seizure, and the police were called.
The enforcement officers told the Kuypers that they had the power to seize
the dog and even put him down. The dog was removed and taken to the pound.
The
Kuypers decided to take the case to court. Diane swore that the dog was in
the basement at the time of the incident. Plus, he was not the kind of dog
that could be called a "dangerous dog."
The court issued an interlocutory
injunction, ensuring the dog was not killed, and released from the pound to
go home to the Kuypers.
The Kuypers case argued two points. First,
that the township could not give itself the power to seize dogs out of the
owner's home. Second, that it infringed their constitutional right that
prevents people from the unreasonable search and seizure of their property.
The
township argued that it did have the right to seize the dog under the "emergency"
provisions of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290. The township also
argued that the court could not investigate whether an emergency actually
existed at the time the dog was seized.
The judge wrote that the case
raises a number of issues, including that of licensing and dog control. The
judge's main concern, however, regards the township's emergency
bylaw itself. The judge wrote that an emergency is something unexpected and
sudden. Yet the township had no proof that there was an emergency, and the
township used the emergency bylaw to superficially justify seizing the dog.
The
judge writes that the part of the emergency bylaw referring to dangerous dogs
is invalid.
The Kuypers had to pay the court costs. The judge did note
that in common law, after one bite, a dog can be declared dangerous and put
down.