The Dogs Of Saskatoon: A Case Of Mistaken Identity?
The Law Society of Saskatchewan found no misconduct in a matter where the accused attorney (“Member”) allegedly gave false testimony in a “dangerous dog” proceeding.
This is the latest in the ongoing legal saga of Hachi-Ko and Bella, two Akita dogs owned by JK, a lawyer in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
The events of what transpired in an attack involving one of the aforementioned dogs has been the subject of:
(a) A dangerous dog hearing;
(b) An appeal from that dangerous dog hearing;
(c) A small claims trial; and
(d) An appeal from that small claims trial.
The story
On March 18, 2012, the Member and another person were walking the two aforementioned Akita dogs. While passing near the Mendal Art Gallery in Saskatoon, the dogs walked past two other dogs (shelties) being walked by SJ. Hachi-Ko is alleged to have attacked one of SJ’s dogs, that later died of its injuries;
The Member was injured attempting to separate the dogs;
Hachi-Ko was prosecuted as being a dangerous dog, partially as a result of this attack;
Shortly after the incident, the Member provided a written statement which set out her recollection of what occurred to JK and JK provided the same to bylaw enforcement officials on or about April 4, 2012;
In the written statement, the Member identified the attacking dog as being Hachi-Ko.
The Member later equivocated on the identity of the attacking dog
Hachi-Ko and Bella are almost identical Akita dogs. Hachi-Ko is a male dog and Bella is female. They are extremely difficult to distinguish. Hachi-Ko is slightly bigger then Bella. They can be distinguished by different colour of collars that they wear, as well as other minor differences that one might be able to ascertain if one knew the dogs relatively well;
Although the Member had identified Hachi-Ko as being the attacking dog in her written statement as well as in her telephone call with KB on February 5, 2013, at trial the Member equivocated and indicated that she could not positively identify which of the two dogs had been the attacking dog;
Ultimately, Hachi-Ko was declared to be a dangerous dog. Further, the dog’s owner, JK, was successfully pursued in small claims court in relation to the attack.
As to the false testimony allegation
Throughout the investigation process and at the hearing of this matter, the Member’s position has remained consistent. She indicates that she initially thought the attacking dog was Hachi-Ko. She assumes that her certainty in this regard was due to the fact that SJ at the time of the attack exclaimed “get him off of her” or words to that effect. As SJ identified the dog as being male, the Member assumes that, in the heat of the moment, she believed that the description was accurate. After considering matters for a significant period of time and realizing that some of her recollections regarding the incident were not accurate (including the precise location where the attack occurred), she started to have doubts as to her certainty as to which dog was the attacker.
Key findings
The panel believes it is entirely plausible that the Member became confused as to the identity of the attacking dog given:
(a) The passage of time;
(b) The events of the day in question being chaotic; and
(c) The Member being confused as to other issues related to the incident and reconsidering her previously stated recollections regarding the identity of the attacking dog.
The panel further notes that the Member’s testimony at this discipline hearing was consistent with her testimony at the dangerous dog hearing of June 7, 2013.
The Justice of the Peace was certainly at liberty to make the determinations that he did and prefer the evidence of others or the Member’s prior statements, as opposed to her testimony on June 7, 2013. However, this does not lead to the panel concluding that the Member was attempting to obfuscate or otherwise mislead the Court in the dangerous dog hearing.
The Member has a rather appropriate last name for a person accused of false testimony – de Whytell. (Mike Frisch)