Woman loses in court after dog Bella killed in Surrey attack

A woman whose dog Bella died after being attacked by a German Shepherd wants the City of Surrey to toughen up local rules to protect other dogs in the future.

Kyla Ruscheinski posted on Facebook about the 2024 incident, saying that the city needs to review its policies when it comes to dogs, especially when it comes to documenting previous attacks.

“Bella mattered,” Ruscheinski wrote on Facebook. “Her life mattered. And I will not let her story end without trying to make change.”

Ruscheinski took the owners of the German Shepherd, known as Ripley, to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, seeking $5,000 for veterinary costs, lost income, and pain and suffering.

The respondents admitted that Ripley bit Bella, but they said that since both the dogs were off leash, both owners are responsible for the incident, according to the CRT ruling.

According to the CRT ruling, “the applicant’s dogs, Milo and Bella, were in front of her garage on a grassy area. Although the applicant says they were 2 feet from her garage, her video evidence shows the location was across the street. The respondent and Ripley were 4 or 5 houses away in the cul-de-sac. None of the dogs were on leash. Ripley approached, then grabbed and shook Bella, causing severe injuries. Bella was euthanized later that evening.”

In British Columbia, there are three ways a pet owner can be held responsible for their pet’s actions. They are occupier’s liability, scienter – which means knowledge of an animal’s tendency to cause harm – and, finally, negligence.

“The day after the incident, the respondent went to the applicant’s home and offered to pay her veterinary costs if she provided the invoices,” said the ruling. “He says she agreed, but only gave a verbal amount of $1,500. The applicant says she attempted several times to give the invoices to the respondent, but he avoided her. She provided one messenger text asking about payment. The respondent says after the incident the police advised him to block the applicant on social media, which he did. He says he never received her message or the invoices. He also says the applicant could have mailed or delivered the invoices but did not until after she filed this CRT dispute.”

The CRT called the original offer a “gratuitous offer” and not binding. The CRT ended up dismissing the case because Ruscheinski couldn’t prove that Ripley had a dangerous history.

“The applicant says Ripley had twice previously attacked her dogs,” said the ruling. “She says Ripley attempted to attack her and her dogs in her garage, and the respondent intervened. She says another time Ripley grabbed Milo and the respondent stopped Ripley. She did not give details of either alleged attack. The respondent says he has walked Ripley on leash past the applicant’s home, when her dogs ran out barking, and he continued walking. There is no other evidence to support either party’s version of previous events. However, the applicant does not say her dogs were injured in either alleged incident. She provided no other evidence, such as witness statements or strata council complaints, to confirm that Ripley had a history of dangerous or aggressive behaviour.”