Dog day afternoon in North Van court

(This column was published in the North Shore News on Nov. 26, 1997)

Dog day afternoon in North Van court

EVERYONE loves a warm, fuzzy doggie story.

Well, this particular doggie story may well leave you wondering what has gone wrong with the purveyors of justice in our little corner of paradise.

Paul Bittente has lived in his North Vancouver City home for the past four years with his family and the family pet, a German Shepherd, who doubles as a watchdog. The dog was getting on in years and losing his effectiveness in this role. The Bittentes got another shepherd pup to replace the older after it shuffled off this mortal coil.

Last January, Bittente received a letter from the city bylaw enforcement people requesting he call them to discuss a complaint of his dog's barking. Bittente dealt with the matter and thought all was fine until he received a second letter in February.

In dealing with the second complaint, from the same person, a neighbor two doors down in a basement suite, he suggested the bylaw staff talk to his neighbors to see if they also thought the dog was a nuisance.

He thought the problem had been handled and didn't think much more about it until he received a summons alleging three counts of violating the noise bylaw.

Bittente disagreed with the allegations, feeling his dogs were trained to be watchdogs and barked only when someone came in proximity to his house and property. Let's bear in mind that dogs are allowed to bark. It is only incessant barking which should bring someone afoul of the law. He disputed the allegations and a trial date was set for Nov. 19.

He showed up for what he thought would be a bylaw hearing, much like a traffic ticket, only to find out the matter had been set for the whole day and an ad hoc Crown appointed to prosecute the matter.

Prior to his case being called, a matter of a break and enter in West Vancouver was added to the court list because the suspect was being held in custody.

The accused in that matter, a Maple Ridge female with a criminal history, pleaded guilty to the B&E and was sentenced to a $100 fine and yet another term of probation.

Several of Bittente's neighbors showed up, on their own time, to give evidence saying the dogs were not a nuisance. Equally, there were, I'm told, three witnesses for the prosecution saying they had been disturbed by the dogs.

One of whom was also disturbed by a couple of other neighborhood dogs and a neighbor on the other side whose Land Rover apparently annoyed her when the man warmed it up on cold winter mornings. One presumes her upstairs neighbors didn't have a coffee grinder.

Without going into the merits of the trial or whether Bittente should have been charged in the first place, he was subsequently found guilty under the bylaw and fined $300.

Yes, that's correct.

In Judge Walker's court, if you break into a house it'll cost you $100. But if you have a dog to protect your house from that same scumbag, it's three times the amount.

I tried to contact the city bylaw enforcement officer, Barbara Warrick, to ask about this case and was informed by the voice mail system, "there are technical problems with this phone so you cannot reach me." To be fair, the message did leave a cellular number for urgent matters.

OK, so it wasn't urgent, but I called it anyway. Didn't matter, it was turned off.

Next, I called James Goulden, the ad hoc prosecutor in the matter, a lawyer with the large downtown firm, Bull, Housser & Tupper. Goulden told me regular Crown prosecutors won't do bylaw offences so the municipalities have to hire outside lawyers at their cost. He said it was necessary in order to "have teeth in the bylaws to ensure infractions were prosecuted."

I'm reasonably certain he did not mean that as a pun.

I then spoke to Bittente's closest neighbor. A nice English gent in his early 70s, who has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years. Ernie Sarsfield told me he lives right behind the Bittente's and his bedroom window overlooks the Bittente backyard. He said, "if the dogs bark, they have a reason. If anyone would have a problem it's me, and I don't."

In his defence, Bittente claimed his dogs protected not only his house from break-ins, but also those of his neighbors. A claim agreed to by Sarsfield and the elderly lady, Molly, who also lives beside the Bittentes.

But not, apparently, by Judge Walker, who said in his summation of the case, Bittente's "arrogance" in believing his dogs prevent B&E's was "unbelievable."

Arrogance? I suppose I should tell you that Bittente is a Vancouver Police Sergeant who, while assigned to the Home Invasion Task Force, was involved in a study which showed out of the 192 incidents of home invasions that have occurred since 1992, none of the victims had a dog. None.

Bark, bark. Woof, woof.

* * *

I have received many calls and messages asking and, in some cases, pleading with me to refute the comments made by North Vancouver RCMP Inspector, Jaime Graham, in a letter published in these pages last Sunday. A number of these calls were made, incidentally, by police officers in the North Vancouver detachment.

I won't. I will, however, state categorically, that all the facts as outlined in the column he referred to are absolutely accurate and I stand by everything I said. If the good inspector has a politically driven agenda, I suggest he not endeavor to impugn my integrity in following it. 'Nuff said.

-30-

Primetimecrime current headlines Columns 1997