Court Upholds “Aggressive Dog” Determination

The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered the appellant’s challenge to the District of North Vancouver’s decision to classify his dog as an “Aggressive Dog” under the District’s bylaw. The classification arose after an incident in which the dog was alleged to have attacked another person without provocation. The appellant disputed the “unprovoked” nature of the incident and argued that the process was unfair.

The Court of Appeal found that the District’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, even though the decision did not explicitly address every aspect of whether the incident was “unprovoked.” The Court also held that the process was procedurally fair, as the appellant had the opportunity to provide his own statement and did not clearly request to submit additional evidence at the relevant time. The appeal was dismissed, and the “Aggressive Dog” designation was upheld.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Municipal councils – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness; Municipalities – By-laws – Animal control.

Madi v. North Vancouver (District), [2025] B.C.J. No. 2037, British Columbia Court of Appeal, October 16, 2025, H. Groberman, W.P. Riley and H. MacNaughton JJ.A.

The appellant was the owner of a large Kuvasz breed dog. In 2024, the District’s Bylaw and Animal Services Department received a report about a dog bite incident involving the appellant’s dog. The matter was assigned to the District’s Senior Animal Welfare Officer, who made a determination that the dog met the definition of an “Aggressive Dog”. The appellant objected to this determination, stating that the process was unfair and skewed against them and requested a reconsideration. While the District’s bylaw did not contain any mechanism for reconsideration of an Aggressive Dog determination, the matter was nonetheless reviewed by the District’s Chief Bylaw Officer out of a “good-faith desire” to address concerns about procedural fairness. The “Aggressive Dog” determination was ultimately upheld on reconsideration.

The appellant filed a petition for judicial review of the District’s “Aggressive Dog” determination. The Chambers judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the decision-making adequately and coherently justified the conclusion and that there was certainly a sufficient evidentiary body in the materials in front of the decision maker to rationally reach the decision it made. The Chambers judge further rejected the appellant’s argument that the process was unfair, noting that it was not satisfied that the appellant was not afforded a chance to provide input into the decision-making process.

The appellant appealed the Chambers judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal, arguing that it erred in finding the District’s decision was reasonable and that the process was not procedurally unfair. The Court of Appeal found that the District’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, even though the decision did not explicitly address every aspect of whether the incident was “unprovoked.” The Court also held that the process was procedurally fair, as Mr. Madi had the opportunity to provide his own statement and did not clearly request to submit additional evidence at the relevant time. The appeal was dismissed.

This case was digested by Eric Mo of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].