The Case of the Problematic Poodle - Part 1

This is the interesting case of the Problematic Poodle – Part 1 or, to use its correct legal name, the case of the R v. Sisett.  It is a case dealing with a full-size Poodle named Charlie, his owners (those being an Ian Sisett and a Marguerite Sisett) and how they came into conflict with other persons, animals, and the law.  The case involving Charlie was decided by the Provincial Court of British Columbia in 2021, but the associated events began over a year earlier.

On the morning of January 29th, 2020, Ian Sisett took his three Poodles – Charlie, Diva, and Biscuit – out from his home in the city of Kelowna, British Columbia with the aim of giving them some exercise. It should be noted here that these Poodles were not small dogs (as some Poodles can be), but rather were standard Poodles, which the American Kennel Club states normally are at least 15 inches tall at the shoulder and normally weigh 40-70 lbs, depending on their sex.  According to the court records of the litigation that would later ensue, Mr. Sisett described the size of one of the dogs – Charlie – as being “giant.”

Mr. Sisett and his dogs travelled to the campus of Okanagan College, to use one of the fields to allow the animals to exercise off-leash there.  He had been there on previous occasions, and the security guards at the college campus were familiar with Mr. Sisett and reportedly allowed him to have his dogs off-leash there.  In fact, when Mr. Sisett was present on the campus that morning, sometime between 6:00am and 8:00am, one of the campus security guards on duty was a tenant of Mr. Sisett, who would later testify at the trial.

The field that Mr. Sisett and his dogs made use of that day was an open grass field and it was not enclosed by a fence.  On the edge of the field was located a public street and a public sidewalk.  As it happened, on that morning as Mr. Sisett exercised his dogs on the campus of Okanagan College, another person was also walking their dog nearby.  This was Ms. Melanie Michaels, who was taking Spike – a small dog weighing under 10 lbs. – for a walk along that very sidewalk that ran adjacent to the field.

Fatefully, at the very time that Ms. Michaels was passing by the field, Mr. Sisett was in the course of playing fetch with his three Poodles, throwing a ball for them to chase.  It happens that this ball somehow left the field and ended up in the public street.  Around the same time, the three dogs of Mr. Sisett approached the street and the sidewalk that ran alongside it, the sidewalk that Ms. Michaels and Spike were on.

Ms. Michaels perceived the three Poodles as charging towards her in an unsafe manner, so she began waving at them, to chase them away from her.  This succeeded for two of the dogs.  Indeed, one of those two ended up running into the street, presumably after the ball which had gone astray there.  A woman who was driving by the field observed the dog running into the street ahead of her, so she honked her horn and applied her vehicle’s brakes, to avoid this dog.

As the passing motorist was stopping to avoid a collision, Ms. Michaels was now dealing with Charlie, Mr. Sisett’s third Poodle, who had not been scared off by Ms. Michael’s waving and had continued to approach her.  Charlie closed his mouth around Ms. Michaels’ smaller dog Spike and began to violently shake him.  Spike began screaming as he was shaken, and Ms. Michaels kicked at Charlie to defend Spike and compel Charlie to release his grip on the dog.  Ms. Michaels would later state she was not sure if her kicks contacted Charlie but, in any case, the Poodle did release Spike.

The woman who had been driving by had these events and stopped, exiting her vehicle and coming over to help Ms. Michaels.  Spike began to make a noise that Ms. Michaels stated she had never heard the animal make before.  Meanwhile, Mr. Sisett called his three Poodles back to him, loaded them into his pickup truck and departed the scene.  He did not make any attempt to communicate with Ms. Michaels.

In the days that followed, Ms. Michaels took three steps in response to the events of January 29th. I will go over these, in no particular order, as I don’t know what she order took them in.

For one, Ms. Michaels took Spike to a veterinarian for treatment, and reportedly was informed that Spike’s jaw and molar were broken.  He reportedly required two surgeries and his jaw had to be wired shut to allow for healing.  But even after this, his jaw was permanently twisted, resulting in him no longer being able to eat hard food.  The total costs of veterinary treatment added up to $6,030.72.

Secondly, Ms. Michaels reported the incident of January 29th to the animal control service of the Regional District of Central Okanagan.  Upon receiving the report, an animal control officer began an investigation and ended up being able to identify Mr. Sisett as the owner of Charlie.  Based on the evidence collected in the investigation, which consisted largely of the statement of Ms. Michaels and the statement of the passing motorist, the animal control officer decided to issue Mr. Sisett with a $1000 ticket for an offence under Regional District of Central Okanagan Bylaw #1343, that being the Responsible Dog Ownership Bylaw.  To be specific it was a ticket for an offence against Section 36 of the bylaw, which read: “No person shall cause or permit his or her dog to become a Dangerous Dog.”

Thirdly, Ms. Michaels began to search for the identity of Charlie’s owner.  She went to the security office of Okanagan College to make enquiries a few days after the incident.  The security guard who was Mr. Sisett’s tenant informed the Sisetts of this visit by Ms. Michaels and, when Ms. Michaels returned on another day, the guard handed her an envelope on behalf of the Sisetts. Inside, there was a note written by Mrs. Sisett and $200.  The note apologized for the incident, stating that the owners of the dog from the incident (which was Charlie, although the dog was not named in the note) were working on his misbehaviour and stated the $200 was to cover any veterinary expenses.  Mrs. Sisett did not sign the note and there were no names or contact information contained in the note.

The note evidently did not satisfy Ms. Michaels, as she continued to try to identify Charlie’s owners.  She participated in an interview with Global News about the incident and she also made posts on Facebook.

Mr. Sisett was apparently offended by statements that Ms. Michaels had made in her interview and online postings, because one year after the incident – in January 2021 – he engaged the services of a lawyer to send her a cease-and-desist letter.  The letter alleged Ms. Michaels’ statements were defaming Mr. Sisett and directed her to remove the Facebook posts and the online story at Global News, and provide an apology letter, or else face a possible lawsuit.  Interestingly, it was the letter from Mr. Sisett’s lawyer that allowed Ms. Michaels to identify him, as her earlier efforts to do so had not proven fruitful.

Mr. Sisett also disputed the $1000 ticket that had been issued to him by the animal control officer and the matter was assigned to the courts for a determination.  The case took a year before going to trial in February 2022 in the Provincial Court of British Columbia.  The trial was presided over by a Judicial Justice of the Peace, a judicial official in Canadian courts that handles trials and other hearings that do not merit being dealt with by a judge.  In this matter, the presiding Judicial Justice was B. Burgess.

At his trial, Mr. Sisett alleged bias and impropriety by the animal control officer who issued the ticket, the Regional District government and the lawyer acting as prosecutor on behalf of the Regional District.  Mr. Sisett also argued that his dog Charlie had never bitten Ms. Michaels’ dog and suggested that Ms. Michaels might have caused her dog’s injuries herself, when she was kicking at Charlie.  Additionally, Mr. Sisett argued that it was not legally proper for him to be held liable for his dog allegedly being dangerous when the dog had no prior history of aggressive incidents, and he had no reason to believe the dog was dangerous.

With regards to the allegations of bias that Mr. Sisett raised, it cannot be known with certainty, but it may be that previous dealings which Mr. Sisett had with the Regional District’s animal control service may have coloured his view of those bodies.  Indeed, Mr. Sisett and/or his wife Mrs. Sisett had previously been issued several tickets for dogs other than Charlie running at large contrary to animal control bylaws and had written letters to local newspapers to complain about what they perceived as unfair treatment. 

In one instance, the Sisetts had challenged two tickets issued for their dogs being loose and running at large and had been successful, having the two tickets thrown out by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2019.  One of the dogs from these previous tickets, named Oso Grande, had sadly been struck by a vehicle during the time it was running loose, which ultimately led to him being euthanized due to his injuries. Indeed, in his letter to a local newspaper, Mr. Sisett commented how the fact he received a ticket for an incident where his dog ended up dying was offensive.

After hearing from the witnesses and considering the evidence at trial over three days in February and June 2021, Judicial Justice Burgess gave his judgment on July 12th, 2021.  He dismissed Mr. Sisett’s accusations of improper conduct against the government, the prosecutor, and the animal control officer, declaring there was no evidence to support them.  He then went on to declare that, despite Mr. Sisett’s attempts to raise doubt, he was satisfied that Charlie had bitten Spike and that this was the cause of his serious injuries.

In his judgment, Judicial Justice Burgess made some unfavourable findings against the credibility of Mr. Sisett.  At one point in his decision, the justice wrote that, although Mr. Sisett had argued in court that his dog was not responsible for injuring Spike, the fact that his wife had offered $200, and an anonymous apology note to Ms. Michaels was evidence to the contrary.  Additionally, he pointed out that, at one point in his testimony, Mr. Sisett had argued he knew nothing serious had happened because he had seen no blood on the ground, and the justice commented that Mr. Sisett would have had no way of being able to see this since he had been approximately 75 to 100 yards away at the time.

The Judicial Justice also criticized Mr. Sisett’s behaviour after the dog bite incident, noting that he left the scene without checking on or communicating with Ms. Michaels and commenting that he believed this was done to avoid consequences.

As for Mr. Sisett’s arguments about not knowing his dog was dangerous, the Judicial Justice dismissed this as well.  He found that the offence against section 36 of the bylaw was a strict liability offence which meant that, unlike with a traditional offence where intent or knowledge is required, once the prohibited act (the injury) had been proven, it was up to the defendant to show they had exercised due diligence to prevent the act or else be found guilty.  The justice’s opinion was that, since Mr. Sisett had been allowing his dog to run off leash – which was prohibited by the bylaw – this amounted to him “causing or permitting” Charlie to become a dangerous dog, as described in the bylaw.  Accordingly, Judicial Justice Burgess convicted Mr. Sisett and upheld the $1000 fine that had been stipulated on his ticket.

And here ends Part 1 of our story, but it is not over, because Mr. Sisett did not take this conviction lying down.  He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  If you want to know how that played out, please check out Part 2 of this series.

SOURCES:

Potenteau, D. (2020, February 8). Kelowna woman seeking video help after pet dog allegedly attacked by poodle. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/6526240/kelowna-pet-dog-attacked-poodle/

Regional District of Central Okanagan Responsible Dog Ownership Bylaw No. 1343, 2014 (Consolidated). https://www.rdco.com/en/your-government/resources/Bylaws/BL1343-Consolidated-Regulate-License-Control-Responsible-Dog-Ownership-2023.pdf

R. v Sisett (2021, July 12), Kelowna M-1 4908-1 (BCPC). https://govlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Regina-v-Sisett-Reasons-for-Judgment-Filed-July-12-2021.pdf

Sisett, I.R. (2019, February 9). Kelowna dog ownership only for the elites [Letter to the editor]. Kelowna Capital News. https://www.kelownacapnews.com/opinion/letter-kelowna-dog-ownership-only-for-the-elites-3175990

Sisett, I.R. (2015, May 10). Pet owner asks for fairness, common sense from dog control [Letter to the editor]. The Daily Courier. https://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_4cb58d1a-f778-11e4-8409-0b768a25cede.html

Sisett, I.R. & Sisett, M. (2015, May 20). Pet unfriendly By-laws [Letter to the editor]. Castanet. https://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/140298/Pet-unfriendly-By-laws

Sisett v Central Okanagan (Regional District), 2019 BCSC 2091 (CanLII). https://canlii.ca/t/j3sdd

The American Kennel Club, Inc. (n.d.). Poodle (Standard). American Kennel Club. Retrieved March 29, 2024 from https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/poodle-standard/

VLOG VERSION