A Kelowna dog owner was able to recoup some expenses associated with a dental surgery for her dog after taking the breeder to small claims court.
According to court documents, a puppy named Charlie was purchased by a couple from Puppy Patch Labradoodles Inc.
The owners say Charlie required dental surgery and the breeder is required to pay for it under a two-year contractual warranty, amounting to $2114.46.
The applicants also sought a partial refund for the dog’s purchase price of $3,500, without having to return the pet to the breeder.
On Nov. 25, 2022, Teresa Brogan collected Charlie and paid Annette Cameron, director of Puppy Patch Labradoodles Inc., fully in cash.
Brogan told the court that Charlie displayed “aggressive mouthing behaviour” from the time she brought him home. She added that the dog had trouble eating. The problem did not correct itself over time, and in March 2023 she took Charlie to two dog trainers.
One of those trainers provided a written statement describing issues with Charlie, such as “nearly constant biting, nipping and jumping on them”
The trainer added that Charlie would drop treats and nip at her fingers. When she inspected his mouth, she found an “abnormal alignment of his upper and lower teeth.”
It was then that Charlie’s owners sought a veterinary opinion. The owners saw two vets, and were told that Charlie had a class 4 malocclusion, which is a hereditary misalignment of the teeth caused by a skeletal abnormality.
After getting the diagnosis, Brogan paid the $236 consultation fee and sent the diagnosis and estimate back to the breeder, as the warranty was supposed to cover the dog for hereditary conditions for two years.
Cameron replied that she wanted to reach out to the two veterinarians. Brogan then followed up on April 17 and April 19 to see if Cameron had followed up, but did not receive a response.
The surgery was performed on April 18, and six incisors were removed. The breeder refused to reimburse the owners for the surgery.
The breeder argued that her health guarantee does not cover dental issues, and that the dog’s “slight underbite” would have been outgrown and therefore did not require surgery.
A judge ruled that the policy said the two-year health guarantee applied to all hereditary conditions designated “severe or life-threatening” by two independent veterinarians.
“There is no evidence that it was life-threatening, but I find it was serious or severe, and not cosmetic,” the judgment reads, adding that Charlie’s trainer described a “transformed dog” after the surgery.
“I find Charlie was likely frequently in pain or discomfort before the surgery.”
As such, Cameron was ordered to pay a total of $2,289.16 for the cost of the surgery and court fees. The owners were unsuccessful in getting a partial refund for the purchase price, since they wish to keep Charlie.
