Recent Cases

City of Calgary v. ND
Overview

Jillian Williamson successfully defended a Dangerous Dog Application brought by the City of Calgary seeking an order declaring a dog “dangerous” and authorizing euthanasia. Despite a serious factual background involving multiple incidents, the Court ultimately ordered that the dog be released back to its owners under strict conditions rather than destroyed.

Background

The application arose under Calgary’s Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw and the Dangerous Dog Act. The City alleged that the dog posed an ongoing public safety risk based on three separate incidents:

On two different occasions, the dog bit and injured two separate dogs; and

On a third occasion, the dog killed another dog.

Based on this history, the City sought a declaration that the dog was dangerous and an order for euthanasia.

Issues Before the Court

The central issue was whether euthanasia was necessary and proportionate in light of the dog’s past conduct, or whether public safety could be adequately protected through alternative measures and conditions imposed on the owners.

Defence Strategy

The defence focused on shifting the Court’s analysis from punishment to prevention and proportionality. While the incidents themselves were not minimized, Jillian emphasized that the Court’s role was to assess current and future risk, not merely past behaviour.

Key elements of the defence included:

• Owner Responsibility and Insight: Evidence demonstrated that the owners took the incidents seriously, accepted responsibility, and understood the steps required to prevent recurrence.
• Significant Corrective Measures: The owners had already taken meaningful and proactive steps well before the hearing, including enrolling the dog in an intensive professional training program tailored to behavioural management and aggression control.
• Future Commitments: The owners committed to continuing this training program on an ongoing basis.
• Environmental Change: Importantly, the owners relocated to a different property with enhanced containment features, substantially reducing the dog’s ability to escape the backyard and eliminating the risk factors that had contributed to earlier incidents.
• Proportionality: I argued that euthanasia is the most extreme remedy available and should only be ordered where no lesser measures can adequately protect the public.

Decision

The Court accepted that while the dog had a troubling history, the risk could be responsibly managed. The judge was persuaded that the owners’ actions were genuine, substantial, and forward-looking.

Rather than ordering euthanasia, the Court directed that the dog be released back to the owners subject to strict conditions governing containment, control, and ongoing training. These measures were found sufficient to address public safety concerns.

Outcome

• Dangerous Dog Application successfully defended
• Euthanasia avoided
• Dog returned to owners with enforceable conditions ensuring proper management and public safety

Significance

This case demonstrates that even in serious Dangerous Dog matters, outcomes are not predetermined. Courts will consider evidence of responsible ownership, meaningful behavioural intervention, and concrete changes that reduce risk. With a well-prepared defence focused on prevention and proportionality, it is possible to achieve humane and balanced results, even in cases involving severe allegations.