The owners of a pit bull that allegedly mauled a contractor in a Langley backyard denied they're responsible for the man's injuries in a response to a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court.
The Maple Ridge contractor claimed he was attacked by two pit bulls on Feb. 28, 2024, while he was building a chain link fence to keep the home's dog from digging into neighbouring yards.
In his filing last spring, the contractor alleged that he was bringing in supplies to the yard when the back door opened and two pit bulls – a male named Enzo owned by the family, and a female named Bella owned by visitors to the house – were released into the yard.
"The dogs were uncontrolled and viciously attacked the plaintiff repeatedly by biting him," the contractor's statement of claim said. He also alleged that the owners had said they would keep the dogs indoors while he was working on the property, and that they knew he would be arriving on that day.
The contractor's claim lists injuries from "multiple dog bites" to the right forearm and elbow, left elbow, and right hip. He said he suffered indentations and bony fragments to his right ulna bone, impaired motor activity in his right hand, decreased sensation to his right hand and arm, an infection in that arm, and "compartment syndrome" to his right forearm, as well as anxiety.
The dog owners' response denied that the attack took place as the contractor described.
They alleged that "…the plaintiff opened a gate to let himself into the backyard at the property upon his arrival, without first advising them of his arrival."
"When the dogs were let out into the property, the… defendants were not aware the plaintiff had already arrived and was in the backyard."
They claim there was no negligence on their part.
The Township of Langley was also named in the contractor's suit because it operates local animal control through the Langley Animal Protection Society (LAPS).
The Township also argues that it was not negligent.
"At all material times, the Township and LAPS acted reasonably and prudently in the circumstances, including by enforcing the bylaw once it learned of Enzo’s behaviour issues and the owners’ misconduct."
The Township's submission to the court also details some of the steps that took place after the attack.
Shortly after the attack, a LAPS animal control officer investigated at the Brookswood property, and spoke to the contractor, Enzo's owners, and neighbours.
In early March, while the investigation was ongoing, neighbours called LAPS to complain about Enzo's continuing aggressive behaviour.
"In or about early March, LAPS advised the owners, among other things, that a dangerous dog designation for Enzo was appropriate in the circumstances and emailed the owners a copy of the Township’s dangerous dog requirements in the bylaw, which included, among other things, requirements for the confinement of Enzo within the property and restrictions on his being taken off the property."
Shortly after that, neighbours reported to LAPS that Enzo was not being confined to the backyard, and was being walked without a muzzle.
On April 10, LAPs staff went to the owners house and told them to voluntarily surrender Enzo. The owners allegedly threatened to have him moved out of the Township if LAPS tried to seize their dog.
So the LAPS staff got a warrant and seized Enzo the same day. As of late December 2024, when the Township filed its response, Enzo remained in the LAPS shelter, pending a hearing of a destruction application which would see him put down.
The other dog's owners were never identified by name in the legal documents, and it's unclear where that dog is.
None of the allegations made in any of the statements or responses have been tested in court.
