McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
1
The following pages are cited from the original Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable
Judge K.J. Ferriss (Surrey Provincial Court). The right-side column contains facts, as
presented in trial, and/or related commentary from trial observers. Entries are identified
accordingly.
Citation:
Lisa McGalliard DBA Furever Freed Date:
Dog Rescue v. Jessica Holloway
File No:
Registry:
20160531
S7864
Surrey
FACT:
[1]
Lisa McGalliard is the founder and operator of • Error: Lisa McGalliard (LM) and/or
Furever Freed Dog Rescue (“FFDR”), an
FFDR is not registered or licensed as
a business in BC
unincorporated business that rescues dogs from
California and Mexico and brings them to Canada • FFDR is an unincorporated, non-profit
association with no legal entity
for the purposes of matching them with appropriate
• FFDR is best described as a “group
adoptive owners. Jessica Holloway decided she
of like-minded individuals associated
would like to acquire a family dog for her young
for a common purpose”.
son and herself in April 2015. She was referred to
FFDR by a friend.
[2]
In May 2015 FFDR brought a male boxer mix
(“Nova”) into Canada and Ms. Holloway agreed to
foster him with a view to adopting him.
[3]
There is a difference in opinion as to what
agreements were in place between the parties and
the result is that Ms. McGalliard has filed this
Notice of Claim asking for the return of Nova as
well as incidental costs. In return, Ms. Holloway is
asking for the Notice of Claim to be dismissed as
she says the parties entered into an adoption
agreement. She is also asking for punitive
damages and reimbursement of her reasonable
costs.
[4]
Part of the way through the trial Miss Mcgalliard FACT:
withdrew her claim that Nova was being neglected.
• LM withdrew her claim of ‘Neglect’ on
nd
the 2 day of trial after being advised
that Jessica Holloway (JH) had
subpoenaed the BC SPCA to give
evidence
• The SPCA concluded their
investigation into allegations of
neglect and informed LM that there
was ‘no evidence to support her
allegations’ on several occasions
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
2
prior to filing her claim.
• LM was provided veterinary receipts
showing Nova received appropriate
care. This information was also
provided prior to the filing of her
claim.
• LM filed her claim of neglect knowing,
at the time of her submission, that her
claim was false.
Issues
[5]
The issues in this case are:
1. Did Ms. Holloway sign the FFDR Foster
Contract?
2. If the Foster Contract was not signed by the
parties, was there an oral agreement between
the parties and what were the terms?
3. Did possession of Nova pass to Ms.
Holloway?
4. If the contract was breached, what are the
damages?
[6]
Ms. McGalliard said that FFDR looks for people to
foster all dogs before they arrive in Canada and
that the person who fosters the dog generally has
the first chance to adopt it.
[7]
On April 4, 2015 Ms. Holloway contacted FFDR
through Facebook messenger. She said she was
looking for a male lab or lab-cross to adopt. She
was told that FFDR looks for people to foster a dog
before they permit that person to adopt it. Ms.
Holloway asked for specifics about fostering and
Ms. McGalliard said the requirements were as
follows:
1. FFDR would do a home check;
2. FFDR would supply everything needed;
3. The fostering home was to supply lots of love
and a routine; and
4. The dog was required to have a full exam at
Thunderbird veterinarian within 72 hours of
arriving in Canada.
[8]
Ms. Holloway was interested in a male heeler next
which was to arrive on April 29, 2015. Ms.
McGalliard told her she needed to have the home
(see below re rules for importing dogs
into Canada)
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
3
check done either on April 28 or 29 and it was
arranged for Ms. Jewell Snelgrove, a volunteer
with FFDR, to do the home check. Shortly after
that, Ms. McGalliard told Ms. Holloway that
someone else wanted to put down a deposit to
secure the heeler pup. Ms. Holloway offered to put
down $100 for the pup as well. She was told it was
very unusual, as FFDR had only taken a deposit in
one other situation. Ms. Holloway did not end up
fostering the heeler.
[9]
In the meantime, Ms. Snelgrove did perform a
home check and everything was fine. She said she
saw a safe yard for the dog and a clean, well-kept
home. There were “no red flags”.
Comment:
Despite Ms. Snelgrove indicating “no
red flags”, LM stated she saw early
“signs of problems” and described ‘red
flags’ as:
1. Having to lock the dog up (when JH
goes to work);
2. Having another rescue dog (which
JH did not);
3. That JH didn’t have money
[10] On April 30, 2015 Ms. Holloway and Miss
McGalliard discussed another set of pups, one of
which was Nova, the subject of this case. Ms.
Holloway selected Nova from a photo on May 1,
2015 and was told they would arrive the next
weekend (May 9th) or the following weekend. On
May 8th Ms. McGalliard said that transport would
be late and it looked like the pups would arrive on
Sunday, May 10 but that too was extended first to
May 12 and then May 13, 2015.
[11] Ms. McGalliard and Ms. Holloway arranged to
meet so Ms. McGalliard could deliver supplies on
May 11, 2015, which was the first time the two
women met. Ms. McGalliard gave Ms. Holloway
pee-pads, a kennel, food, toys, a new leash and a
new collar. She says that she had Ms. Holloway
sign the standard form FFDR foster contract (the
“Foster Contract”). She says Ms. Holloway signed
two copies on the back of a car.
[12] Ms. Megan Angeltvedt, another volunteer with Comment:
FFDR, said that she accompanied Ms. McGalliard Ms. Megan Angeltvedt was deceitful to
that day. She said Ms. McGalliard explained the the Court when she gave false evidence
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
4
terms of the Foster Contract and Ms. Holloway under oath. JH DID NOT sign a Foster
seemed to understand it. She saw Ms. Holloway Contract.
sign two copies of the Foster Contract on the back
of a vehicle – one for Ms. Holloway and one for
FFDR. She says that a copy was not given to Ms.
Holloway.
[13] Ms. Holloway denies signing the Foster Contract.
She says that only Ms. McGalliard and she met
that day, not Ms. Angeltvedt. She says she signed
a piece of paper that was just an introduction to
FFDR.
[14] Nova was one of four boxer-cross puppies from
Tijuana, Mexico. A mother and her puppies came
to Ms. McGalliard’s attention through her contacts.
She paid for veterinarian care, including flea
treatment.
She sent money for food and
transported them to Los Angeles, where they were
boarded for one night and then transported via
ground transport to Blaine, Washington where Ms.
McGalliard picked them up. The mom and pups
were in bad shape and the mom and one pup died.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency
is the governing body for transport of
live animals.
Health of Animals Regulations Act
established
regulations
for
Sick,
Pregnant and Unfit Animals
Sec 138 (1) No air carrier or sea carrier
shall take on board for exportation out of
Canada an animal affected with or
suffering from a communicable disease.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) no person
shall load or cause to be loaded on any
motor vehicle and no one shall transport
or cause to be transported an animal.
(a) that by reason of infirmity, illness,
injury, fatigue or any other cause
cannot be transported without
undue suffering during the expected
journey;
(b) that has not been fed and watered
within five hours before being
loaded, if the expected duration of
the animal’s confinement is longer
than 24 hours from the time of
loading; or
(2.1) For the purpose of paragraph
(2)(a), a non-ambulatory animal is an
animal that cannot be transported
without undue suffering during the
expected journey.
Protection of Animals from Injury or
Sickness
143 (1) No person shall transport or
cause to be transported any animal in a
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
5
motor vehicle, crate or container if injury
or undue suffering is likely to be caused
to the animal by reason of:
(a) inadequate construction of the
motor vehicle …
(b) …
(c) the fittings or other parts of the
motor vehicle or container being
inadequately padded, fenced off
or otherwise obstructed;
(d) undue exposure to the weather;
or
(e) inadequate ventilation.
OFFENCE AND PUNISHMENT
General offence
65 (1) Every person who contravenes
any provision of this Act, other than
section 15, or the regulations or who
refuses or neglects to perform any duty
imposed by or under the Act or the
regulations is guilty of
(a) an offence punishable on
summary conviction and liable
to a fine not exceeding fifty
thousand
dollars
or
to
imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months, or to
both; or
(b) an indictable offence and liable
to a fine not exceeding two
hundred and fifty thousand
dollars or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years,
or to both.
[15] According to Ms. McGalliard the pups were
brought across the border on May 13, 2015 at 8 or
8:15 pm. She says that Ms. Holloway was in a
rush as she had to get her son home to bed. She
said that Ms. Holloway was rude and pushed her
way in. She says at that time she gave Ms.
Holloway
a
sheet
of
paper
entitled
“Foster/Adoption Emergency Contacts.” She told
the other people picking up the puppies that they
had to be in touch with FFDR weekly and that a full
examination, shots and de-worming had to be
done at Thunderbird vet between 72 hours and a
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
6
week after pick up.
[16] Ms. Holloway recalls that she received a telephone
call from Ms. McGalliard at approximately 10 p.m.
on May 12, 2015. Pick up was scheduled for 11
p.m. that night. She says a couple of other
families were waiting as well for the pups and Ms.
Holloway’s son was sleeping in the back of her
car. She never received the sheet of paper
entitled “Foster/Adoption Emergency Contacts.”
She says the only communication she received
was that she was told to take the dog to their vet
(Thunderbird) within a week.
[17] Ms. Angeltvedt agrees that the day of pick-up was
May 12 and she recalls seeing Ms. Holloway when
Nova was picked up around 8 or 8:30 p.m. She
recalls that the dogs arrived earlier about 7 or 7:30
p.m. She recalls a telephone call from Ms.
McGalliard but it was not at 10 p.m.
[18] However, the Fido telephone logs produced by Ms.
Holloway show that only one call was made from
Ms. McGalliard to Ms. Holloway that day and that
was at 9:55 p.m. There was no telephone call
made on May 11 or May 13, 2015.
[19] Ms. Holloway did have Nova examined at
Thunderbird Vet on May 15, 2015. Thereafter she
had Nova’s veterinarian care done through Surrey
Animal Hospital on July 9 and 13, 2015.
[20] On May 24, 2015 Ms. Holloway says that she and
her friend, Kaylie Burnett, were walking the dogs
and running some errands. Ms. Burnett recalled it
was around May 20, 2015 and that Ms. Holloway
had her phone on speakerphone. There was a
female on the line who she understood to be Ms.
McGalliard.
There was talk about arranging
payment for $200 now and $200 later. Ms.
Holloway was excited and there was talk about
meeting up somewhere.
[21] Ms. Holloway says that in that telephone call, she
and Ms. McGalliard agreed that the adoption fee
would be $400, payable in 2 instalments of $200
each. Ms. Snelgrove testified that FFDR accepts
adoption fees in instalments. Ms. Holloway said
Comment:
Ms. Megan Angeltvedt was deceitful to
the Court when she gave false evidence
under oath. Phone records contradict
the evidence of Ms. Angeltvedt.
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
7
she tried to meet up with Ms. McGalliard on four
different occasions to give her the first $200
instalment but Ms. McGalliard kept cancelling and
rescheduled the meetings. Finally the agreement
was to leave $200 cash at Thunderbird Vet on
June 9, 2015, which she did.
She said
Thunderbird refused to give her a receipt but there
is no dispute that Ms. Holloway left Ms. McGalliard
$200 cash.
[22] On June 20, 2015 Ms. Holloway’s telephone was
stolen and her phone was on hiatus from then until
July 5, 2015. She says that until July 8, 2015 she
thought she had an agreement to adopt Nova.
FACT:
A statement, provided by FIDO, was
entered as evidence confirming that
JH’s phone was on hiatus for the period
noted.
[23] Ms. McGalliard says she never had a discussion
about selling Nova to Ms. Holloway and that she,
in fact, spent over a month trying to contact Ms.
Holloway.
It was only when she saw Ms.
Holloway’s name on Facebook on July 7, 2015
that she was able to message her and ask what
was going on. She says she expected Ms.
Holloway to be in contact weekly, although there is
no requirement to do that in the Foster Contract.
In the meantime she had had someone attend at
Ms. Holloway’s home on two occasions and had
sought the SPCA’s involvement.
[24] Ms. Holloway admits that Ms. McGalliard
attempted to call her on June 27, 28 and 29 as
those calls are recorded on her bill. However, she
did not receive or know about those calls as her
cell phone had been stolen.
[25] By the time Ms. Holloway had contact with Ms.
McGalliard, Ms. Holloway’s and her son’s names
were all over Facebook, accusing her of stealing
Nova. She says she tried to reason with Ms.
McGalliard but everything deteriorated to the point
that it became a war over Facebook. Many of
those exchanges were entered in as evidence in
Exhibit 1. Most of the content of those exchanges
were of little relevance and I put no weight on
them.
[26] Ms. McGalliard commenced the court case on FACT:
August 24, 2015. She has asked for Nova to be On September 23, 2015 LM was issued
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
8
returned to her as well as for vet bills of $800,
neutering of $250 and $1,000 for court costs. She
alleged that Ms. Holloway had signed a fostering
agreement on May 11, 2015 and that Ms.
Holloway refused to allow home checks or to go to
Thunderbird Vet with Nova. She alleged that Nova
had not had the necessary shots, neutering,
deworming and full examination and that FFDR
had been looking for Nova for seven weeks. She
also confirmed that Ms. Holloway had told her she
had no telephone and that she had the required
medical treatments done through her own vet.
However, when Ms. McGalliard called Ms.
Holloway’s vet, she was told that Nova had “not
been there at that time.” She further states that
FFDR requires a deposit to be made by the
fostering home when fostering so that the puppy is
not stolen or sold. Ms. McGalliard returned Ms.
Holloway’s deposit on July 18, 2015.
Ms.
Holloway says she has not cashed the July 18,
2015 cheque.
a court order to produce (to JH) receipts
for the amount of her claim:
[27] The war carried on at court. Both parties have
accused the other of assault at the Courthouse.
Ms. Holloway amended her Reply so it mentioned
an assault and Ms. McGalliard also subpoenaed a
police officer to give evidence of the assault
alleging it was against her. The parties could not
converse enough to have a settlement conference
and, during the first day of trial, up to three sheriffs
were required in the courtroom because of the
disrespectful and disruptive behaviour of the
volunteers of FFDR. [my emphasis]
NOTE:
Original court documents
indicate “Ms. McGalliard” subpoenaed
the police officer when, in fact, the
officer was subpoenaed by Ms.
Holloway.
Did Ms. Holloway sign a Foster Contract with
FFDR?
[28] Ms. Holloway describes the document she signed
on May 11, 2015 as a general introduction FFDR,
rather than the Foster Contract produced at trial.
She says she asked for a copy of the alleged
Foster Contract from Ms. Holloway but was not
given one until Approximately October 23, 2015.
She says that it is not her signature on the Foster
Contract produced at trial an she had a
handwriting expert, Mr. Brent Bishop, examine the
Foster FFDR and provide an expert report. He
1. Vet bills of $800 – a receipt for
$57.50 was produced. Part of this
expense was a fee paid for Nova to
be immunized against rabies.
Puppies are not to be immunized
before 3 months and are not to be
imported until 4 months (after a one
month inoculation period).
2. Neutering cost of $250 – Nova
was neutered by JH’s vet at the time
the vet recommended. JH paid the
cost for this surgery. LM would
have realized no cost and she failed
to provide any receipts.
3. $1000 for Court Costs - Small
Claims Court is designed for
litigants who do not have a lawyer. If
a litigant plans to hire a lawyer, no
part of the legal fees will be
reimbursed. LM’s true court costs
are filing fees of $126.
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page
9
testified at court and I allowed him to be qualified
as a handwriting expert.
[29] Mr. Bishop was not provided with the original
Foster Contract. Ms. Holloway requested the
original Foster Contract but she says that request
was denied by Ms. McGalliard, although it
appears that she agreed to allow a different
handwriting expert, an ex-police officer, to pick up
the original from her. Mr. Bishop acknowledged
that it is best if he has the originals to compare in
particular instances. However, in this situation,
copies were not a factor in reaching his conclusion
that it was highly probable Ms. Holloway DID NOT
sign the Foster Agreement. [my emphasis]
[30] Section 45 of the Evidence Act [RSBC 1996] c.
125 states:
“Comparison of disputed writing with writing
proved to the satisfaction of the court to be
genuine must be permitted to be made by a
witness, and the writing and the evidence of
witnesses about it may be submitted to the court
and jury as evidence of the genuineness or
otherwise of the writing in dispute.”
This means that, in a case where handwriting is
disputed, a judge may compare the handwriting to
handwriting that is properly in evidence and come
to his or her own conclusion as to the genuineness
of the contested handwriting: Scarfe v. Fernco
Developments Ltd., 2015 BCSC 2310, 2015
CarswellBC 3643, [2016] B.C.W.L.D. 1687, [2016]
B.C.W.L.D. 1691, [2016] B.C.W.L.D. 1695, [2016]
B.C.W.L.D. 1701, [2016] B.C.W.L.D. 1703, 25
C.C.L.T. (4th) 316, 261 A.C.W.S. (3d) 491.
[31] In this case, I have the copies of the samples of
Ms. Holloway’s signatures that were provided to
Mr. Bishop to compare as well as the original
Reply and Counterclaim. All of those signatures
are virtually the same and I agree with Mr. Bishop
that those signatures are significantly different
from that on the Foster Contract. It was argued on
behalf of Ms. McGalliard that if Ms. Holloway
signed the Foster Contract on the back of a vehicle
as alleged, the signature would be different. Mr.
COMMENT:
On the final day of trial, LM and Ms.
Snelgrove were asked to produce the
original Foster Contract but no contract
could be found nor could they inform the
court of it’s location.
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Bishop said that ‘rush’ can give a change to a
signature as there are three different styles:
formal, every day, and informal or careless.
However, that would not change his opinion in this
case. What is interested to note is that the
signature of the Foster Contract, while not looking
like Ms. Holloway’s, is neater that the samples
provided by Ms. Holloway. I would not expect a
rushed signature on the back of the vehicle to be
neater.
[32] Therefore, I find that Ms. Holloway did NOT SIGN
the Foster Contract as alleged by Ms. McGalliard.
However, given my reasons that follow, perhaps
not much rides on this finding except for the
credibility of Ms. McGalliard. Accordingly, where
different, I prefer Ms. Holloway’s version of the
facts over Ms. McGalliard’s. [my emphasis]
If the Foster Contract was not signed by the
parties, was there an oral agreement between the
parties and what were the terms?
[33] The parties were clearly operating on some type of
understanding or Ms. McGalliard would not have
allowed Ms. Holloway to take Nova to her home.
Ms. Holloway was clear in her understanding that
she was fostering to adopt. She was also clear
that the terms were as set out in the Facebook
message from Ms. McGalliard:
1. FFDR would do a home check;
2. FFDR would supply everything needed;
3. The fostering home was to supply lots of
love and a routine; and
4. The dog was required to have a full exam at
Thunderbird veterinarian within 72 hours of
arriving in Canada.
Since I have determined the Foster Contract was
NOT signed by Ms. Holloway, I find that these
were the terms of the agreement between the
parties. [my emphasis]
[34] Ms. Holloway followed all of the above terms.
They were not a lot different than the terms set out
Page 10
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
in the Foster Contract as neither agreement
required Ms. Holloway to contact FFDR on a
weekly basis and the terms regarding where Nova
was to obtain veterinary care were vague.
[35] I find that Ms. Holloway did have a telephone
conversation with Ms. McGalliard as both Ms.
Holloway and Ms. Burnett testified and entered
into an oral agreement.
That is the only
reasonable explanation as to why $200 was paid
to Ms. McGalliard by Ms. Holloway and then
returned to her on July 18, 2015. It seems odd
that Ms. McGalliard would return the deposit on
July 18, 2015 if, as she states on the Statement of
Claim, the deposit was required to ensure the
puppy would not be stolen or sold. According to
the Notice of Claim, she returned it after
attempting to contact Ms. Holloway for a period of
7 weeks. Ms. Holloway’s telephone log from Fido
supports her version of events.
[36] For some reason Ms. McGalliard changed her
mind about allowing Ms. Holloway to adopt the
dog. It may be because of the two-week lapse in
cellular service and the resulting lack of contact
between the two of them that Ms. McGalliard felt
that Ms. Holloway was no longer a suitable
candidate. It may be because Ms. McGalliard was
under the assumption that the dog was not being
cared for an in particular was not receiving proper
medical attention, installation of the microchip,
neutering and other things. Whatever it was, Ms.
McGalliard decided she wanted out of the
agreement she made with Ms. Holloway to adopt
Nova. In doing so, she repudiated the oral
agreement, but Ms. Holloway did not accept the
repudiation.
[37] Accordingly, I find that there was an agreement
that Ms. Holloway would adopt Nova and she
would pay, as the adoption fee, a total of $400 for
Nova in two instalments.
Did possession of Nova pass to Ms. Holloway?
[38] Possession of Nova under the oral agreement to
adopt passed to Ms. Holloway at the time the oral
agreement was entered into on May 24, 2015.
Page 11
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page 12
Although Ms. Holloway was in possession of Nova
prior to that date, the terms were those set out in
the Facebook message regarding fostering. When
the oral adoption agreement was made, Ms.
Holloway became Nova’s owner and has
possession of him accordingly.
If the contract was breached, what are the
damages?
[39] As ownership and possession of Nova had passed
to Ms. Holloway, Ms. McGalliard can only claim
damages in the event of a breach of contract. She
has no right to ask for Nova to be returned to her
possession. However, as Ms. Holloway did not
breach the oral agreement, there are no damages
owing to Ms. McGalliard for breach of contract.
The contract for the adoption of Nova is an
enforceable contract and Ms. Holloway is to pay
the sum of $400 as agreed upon with Ms.
McGalliard.
[40] I understand that Ms. Holloway has not cashed the
July 18, 2015 cheque and it is now stale-dated.
Therefore she owes the remaining $200 to Ms.
McGalliard.
[41] Ms. Holloway filed an amended Reply on
December 10, 2015. She asked for $1,000 as
punitive and aggravated damages (fraud, forgery
and vexatious and frivolous conduct), $400 for
reasonable related expenses, $750 for the cost of
Ms. Bishop’s report and $126 in filing fees.
Comment:
What is fraud*?
Section 380 (1) of the Criminal Code of
Canada defines Fraud as:
Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or
other fraudulent means, whether or not
it is a false pretence within the meaning
of this Act, defrauds the public or any
person, whether ascertained or not, of
any property, money or valuable
security or any service is guilty of an
offence.
The basic definition requires elements of
"dishonesty" and "deprivation"
What is forgery*?
Section 366 (1) of the Criminal Code of
Canada defines Forgery as:
Every one commits forgery who makes
a false document, knowing it to be false,
with intent that it should in any way be
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page 13
used or acted on as genuine, to the
prejudice of any one.
Making false document*
Making a false document includes
(a) altering a genuine document in any
material part; or
(b) making a material addition to a
genuine document or adding to it a false
date, attestation, seal or other thing that
is material.
What is vexatious*?
In a 2006 report, the Law Reform
Commission of Nova Scotia used these
words:
"(A) vexatious litigant (is) someone who
persistently and habitually engages in
legal proceedings, often against a large
number of people, without having a
legitimate claim requiring resolution.
"Vexatious litigants persistently and
habitually engage in legal proceedings,
without having a legitimate claim
requiring resolution. The vexatious
litigant may sue in order to annoy,
harass, or financially punish other
people. Vexatious litigants can strain
court resources. They can waste the
time of judges and administrative staff
and prevent other, legitimate claims
from being dealt with. They can also
force other people to incur otherwise
unnecessary legal bills."
What is frivolous conduct*?
“frivolous” means lacking a legal basis
or legal merit; a matter that has little
prospect of success.
*At the time of publication, no criminal
charges have been pursued against LM
or Megan Angeltvedt.
[42] At the end of trial, Ms. Holloway advised me that it
cost $1,100 for Mr. Bishop to prepare the report
and $400 to attend court. Mr. Bishop’s attendance
was required by Ms. McGalliard. I found his report
to be clear and it was a reasonable expense. Ms.
Holloway should be reimbursed for that cost as
well as the $226 cost of obtaining her phone
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page 14
records fro Fido.
[43] I do not have the jurisdiction to award punitive and
aggravated damages. Under rule 20(5) of the
Small Claims Rules, I am permitted to order a
penalty:
A judge may order a penalty
(5) A judge may order a party to pay the other
party up to 10% of the amount claimed or the
value of the claim or counterclaim if the party
made a claim, counterclaim or reply and
proceeded through trial with no reasonable basis
for success.
And under rule 20(6) of the Small Claims Rules, I
may order payment of expenses where there is
misconduct:
Compensation for unnecessary expenses
(6) A judge may order a party or witness whose
conduct causes another party or witness to incur
expenses to pay all or part of those expenses.
[44] I have already ordered payment of most expenses
so there is nothing further I can order under rule
20(6).
[45] Ms. McGalliard’s claim was for $2,050 plus the
return of Nova. If I find that there was no
reasonable basis for success for Ms. McGalliard’s
claim, then I can order an additional $205 in a
penalty. I have reviewed the few cases where
such a penalty has been awarded and I find myself
reluctant to do so.
Ms. McGalliard was
represented by counsel during the trial and has
likely incurred costs in that regard. Having said
that, I want to be clear that my decision in favour of
Ms. Holloway is no reflection on his abilities as
counsel. He represented his client thoroughly
while treating Ms. Holloway with professionalism
throughout a very difficult trial.
[46] Therefore, Ms. McGalliard is responsible
reimbursement of $1,500 for Mr. Bishop, $226
the
Fido
records,
reasonable
costs
photocopying of $100 and filing fees of $126
for
for
of
for
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page 15
the total sum of $1,952.
[47] To be set off against the costs is the sum of $200
which is the amount outstanding for the adoption
fee. Therefore, I order Ms. McGalliard to pay Ms.
Holloway the sum of $1,752 on or before August
31, 2016.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Judge K.J. Ferris,
Provincial Court Judge (Surrey)
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/mexico-mexique/consul/customsdouanes.aspx?lang=eng#dogs
Dogs:
For information on the entry of animals as dogs and cats, among others, into Canada,
please visit the section that discusses pet imports on the website of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency.
If you wish to take your dog or cat from Mexico to Canada, you will have to obtain:
• Rabies and other vaccination certificates from a veterinarian
These health certificates must be issued in letterhead paper in Spanish and English or
French no more than a week prior to your departure date. For details on what the health
certificate of your animal should mention, please visit the above mentioned website. To
obtain a travel certificate, you will also need to present a copy of your veterinarian's
license and up-to-date certificates of vaccination and disinfestation for your pet.
• Your dog may enter Canada without quarantine if the certificate shows that the animal
was vaccinated against rabies not more than one year and not less than 30 days
preceding the date of importation into Canada.
• Rabies vaccination is not recognized if it is performed before the animal reaches three
months of age. Fees are payable in Canada for inspection of dogs being imported or
returning to Canada.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/terrestrial-animals/imports/policies/liveanimals/pets/dogs/eng/1331876172009/1331876307796
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
McGalliard DBA Furever Freed v. Holloway
Page 16
Commercial dogs are revenue-generating dogs OR dogs in the following categories:
• dogs destined for an animal welfare organization
• dogs destined for adoption
• dogs for resale;
Commercial dogs under eight months of age entering Canada require:
•
•
•
•
a rabies vaccination certificate
a veterinary certificate of health
a microchip
an import permit