B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has rejected a dog breeder’s claim for $835 after a buyer had a dog’s tail amputated due to a tail defect and stopped payment for the dog.
According to a , Candace Elliott bought Kookbie from Kelly Molloy for $2,000 in February 2023.
However, Elliott stopped making payments because Kookbie required surgery for a tail issue.
Molloy said she provided no warranty for the tail defect and asked for an order that Elliott pay the $835 still owing under the parties’ contract.
Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr found Molloy provided a contractual warranty that Kookbie was in excellent health and condition when Elliott purchased him.
“I find she breached that warranty because Kookbie had a serious tail deformity, which was not excluded from the warranty,” Regehr said. “Ms. Elliott paid more to amputate the tail than the $835 she owes Ms. Molloy.”
Elliott signed a purchase contract on Feb. 22, 2023 and picked up Kookbie the next day.
Elliott first brought up Kookbie’s tail on June 14, 2023, in a Facebook message.
“By then she had made $1,000 in payments,” Regehr said, noting that Molloy only claims $835 in the dispute because the parties agreed Elliott should be credited with $165 in vaccination costs.
Smeared feces
“Ms. Elliott told Ms. Molloy that Kookbie could not lift his tail when he needed to defecate, which meant that each time he went there was smeared feces on his backside and tail. She said she had to bathe Kookbie every time he defecated,” Regehr wrote.
Elliott took Kookbie to a vet, who described the dog’s tail as “abnormally formed” and causing hygienic problems.
The quote for the amputation was $901.63. Elliott thought because she only owed $835, she and Molloy could call it even.
Molloy disagreed.
Regehr said Molloy argued there was nothing truly wrong with Kookbie’s tail.
“She admits it had an abnormality but denies that it impacted his ability to function normally. She says that bathing is part of the routine care of a puppy,” Regehr said. “I do not accept this argument.”
Regehr said he doubted a vet would recommend and perform a tail amputation without a compelling medical reason. He said B.C.’s College of Veterinarians bans tail amputations unless necessary to treat an injury or disease.
Regehr then moved to the contract, which he noted provided a long list of conditions not covered under the warranty, including “kinked, crooked, or inverted tails.” He ruled the tail deformity fell under that description, excluding it from coverage.
Regehr ruled Kookbie was not in excellent health when purchased and agreed with Elliott that the issue with the tail was more than a kink.
“I find that Ms. Molloy provided a contractual warranty that Kookbie was in excellent health and condition when Ms. Elliott purchased him,” Regehr said. “I find she breached that warranty because Kookbie had a serious tail deformity, which was not excluded from the warranty.”
He said Elliott paid more for the amputation than she owed Molloy and dismissed the claim.
