Woman who returned puppy due to ear infection not entitled to a refund, B.C. tribunal rules
CTV
British Columbia's small claims tribunal has ruled that a woman who bought a puppy from a breeder is not entitled to a refund after she returned the animal because it had an ear infection.
British Columbia's small claims tribunal has ruled that a woman who bought a puppy from a breeder is not entitled to a refund after she returned the animal because it had an ear infection.
Shelley Ellis took breeder Teresa Armich to the Civil Resolution Tribunal seeking reimbursement of $4,725.27, which included the price of the puppy and the costs incurred by having the dog.
Ellis claimed her veterinarian diagnosed the puppy with allergies, which could be a chronic issue, and sought a refund after returning the animal.
The breeder countered that the puppy is healthy and has no chronic health issues, noting that under the terms of their signed purchase contract, the buyer is not entitled to a refund of the $3,500 purchase price nor reimbursement for expenses.
Ellis told the tribunal she noticed the dog was scratching both its ears approximately four days after she brought the dog home. She took the puppy to a Vancouver Island animal hospital a month later, and evidence presented to the tribunal shows the veterinarian diagnosed the animal with a yeast infection in both ears, but found the dog was "otherwise healthy."
Ellis emailed Armich the next day to report the infection, saying the vet told her that if the itching reoccurred within four weeks it might be a chronic, life-long allergy. A week later she emailed the breeder, saying the itch had "started again" and if the infection hadn't cleared up when she saw the vet again, she would return the puppy "as per our contract."
Armich asked Ellis to bring the puppy back to her as soon as possible so her own veterinarian could examine the animal.
