They say you can’t fight city hall, but that’s exactly what Stu and Amber Bell did. And they won, too.
“Amber and I have won our legal battle with the District, as a judge has ruled us Not Guilty on both charges,” says Stu.
He says the couple had at least five pre-trial days before the actual court appearance. “Sometimes, we had to wait on hold for hours and hours.”
But that is the cost of fighting town hall. At least, from their side. But, he says, from the town’s side, the cost was a lot higher. “For each one of these, the town paid our Bylaw officer to sit there on hold. We had two court dates in Dawson Creek, where we were in the court house for three to four hours each. For those dates the town paid both our Bylaw Officer and our Fire Chief for their time in court, and their travel (maybe a meal too, I don’t know). They likely spent a lot of administrative time putting their case together.”
But, says Bell, it is a case that should not have happened.
In May of last year, his dog and another got into a fight on his front lawn. The incident was caught on his security camera. “My wife left the house, with Izzy on leash, when one of the neighbourhood dogs came running up. It gave a bluff charge, and Izzy called the bluff and tugged at her leash to lunge forward to protect my wife.”
A second dog joined in the attack, as, a few moments later, did the children of the dog owner that was attacking his dog. “They picked up some sticks, and joined in, hitting Izzy,” says Bell. “Finally the owner of the attacking dogs showed up. She sauntered over holding a shovel, and instead of using it to pry the dogs apart, she took a swing. She took a swing, with the sharp side of the shovel not at her dogs, but at Izzy, who was still on a leash. Izzy now had two dogs, two children, and one adult attacking her.”
Some underlying facts are also at play, says Bell. “The other dogs belong to my next-door neighbour and the Pit bull has previously attacked Izzy. This has contributed to Izzy reacting negatively. Many times, both of the neighbour’s dogs are left to run loose, and they have been involved in other incidents.”
Soon after, says Bell, a police officer showed up. “He asked a few questions and took a few statements, but ultimately let us know that dog fights are a bylaw issue. So we called bylaw and left a message, and on Monday we got a call back. We gave our side of the story and submitted a copy of the security footage.”
Bell says he was shocked when, after reviewing the tape, they were issued a $500 ticket, because their dog had lunged first. “Remember, Izzy was not only on our property, but also on a leash,” he says. “On top of that they used the same footage to determine that since Axel wasn’t on a leash, we deserved another $100 fine.”
Bell says this still bothers him. “A woman in town got bit by a dog at large two weeks prior to the incident. That dog only got a warning for being at large. Axle never hurt anyone and had no prior offenses. He didn’t join in the fight, but because his paw landed on district property during the incident we got a $100. Knowing that the last dog at large hurt someone and got a warning, but Axle deserved a ticket? That made it feel personal.”
At the time, Bell said his faith in the town was shaken. “It hurts me to my core, and makes me feel a level of anger that I have never experienced before to know that my town would charge me based on evidence I submitted, of my leashed dog getting in a fight on our property. I have been a Tumbler Ridgian since 1995, and I feel entirely betrayed by my home town.”
After the ticket, the couple wrote a letter of dispute to the town, requesting the tickets be thrown out. Instead, says Bell, the district chose to take the couple to court.
But a strange thing happened on the way to the courthouse. After learning of that attack—and another attack where a local woman was bitten while out walking—Council voted to amend the bylaw, including changing the actual language of the clause the Bell’s dog was charged with.
Case closed, right? Wrong. “We wrote a letter to town council – which included our original letter to the district – requesting they recommend the District drop the charges, says Bell. “Town council voted on our request, and they decided the best course of action was to continue to take us to court. Yes, town council voted to amend the bylaw we were charged with, but also voted to take us to court.”
Indeed, when the changes to the bylaw were discussed, the incident was specifically raised. At the time, Councillor Howe said he liked the new wording around incident’s on the animal’s own property. “It says ‘bite another animal, whether on the property of the Owner or not, unless the animal was engaged in the protection of the Owners property or itself while on the Owners property.’ I think that completely reflects what we were trying to do as a council. The incident that happened down on Spieker, I didn’t feel comfortable with what happened to the owner of that place, her dog having to fight another dog on its own property while it was protecting her; I didn’t feel that was a fair way for her to be fined. Now that we’ve changed the bylaw, I think it’s a smart way to word it. If a dog wanders onto your property, your dog can’t destroy it or kill it, but it gives the dog an opportunity to protect its owner or children in the yard.”
According to Bell, two Councillors told him directly that the incident affected the way they voted. And yet, they also voted in a closed meeting to continue the legal action.
Bell says the ticket he was issued was for “contravening Animal Responsibility Bylaw No. 633, 2016. Clause (h) of this bylaw was highlighted for my reference. It states: ‘(h) attack a person or other animal, whether on the property of the Responsible Person or not, causing severe injury or death.’ Izzy’s actions caused neither injury nor death.”
And, after nearly two years of having the issue hanging over their head, the judge ruled they were not guilty.
But for Bell, the issue isn’t over. “Both District staff and council received and read this letter, and decided to run us through the court system. I feel we laid it out to them as plain as possible that we would win our case, that they were wrong, and that this would be a waste of everyone’s time and money. But both district staff and our council voted to move forward with pressing charges anyways.”
He says the experience has soured his opinion of the town. “I took it to every possible level in this town, but had to leave Tumbler to find justice. I don’t want to live here anymore.”
The only bright spot? “Councillor Will Howe was so on our side that if we lost in court, or if we wanted to give up, he said he was going to pay the ticket for us. He called within the minutes of getting the news of the verdict to congratulate us, and say that he had the money sitting on the table for us still, in case we lost.”
Trent is the publisher of Tumbler RidgeLines.
