The appellant dog kennel appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it negligent in caring for the respondent's dog, which suffered broken teeth, weight loss, and dehydration during a five-day stay.
The kennel argued the trial judge erred in determining the standard of care without expert evidence and in finding causation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly considered the kennel's representations of having a veterinarian on site and 24/7 monitoring, and reasonably relied on the factual testimony of the on-site veterinarian.
The court found no error in the trial judge's inference that the kennel's failure to inspect the dog or contact the owner caused the injuries.
