BC helicopter owner loses in court after sniffer dog damages $2.5M chopper

A BC man, who claimed that sniffer dogs had damaged his private $2.5M helicopter, will have to pony up for the repairs himself after his attempt to sue the Canada Border Services Agency fell flat.

According to a Dec. 11 BC Supreme Court decision, on returning to Canada a sniffer dog caused considerable damage to the chopper after Border Services agents let the K9 in the cab and shut the door.

The decision said Lucas Siemens had flown to Lynden, Washington in November 2024 to take his daughter to a basketball tournament.

Flying back later the same day, Siemens landed the chopper at Abbotsford Huntingdon Port of Entry and was asked by Canada Border Services Agents whether he had anything to declare.

“He advised that the only item on board was his daughter’s basketball bag,” Justice Sandra Sukstorf said in the decision.

However, border security decided to use a detector dog.

“(He) alleges that the officers directed the detector dog to jump into the cockpit, then closed the helicopter’s doors, allowing the dog to move freely within the cabin,” the decision reads. “(He) states that the dog caused significant physical damage to the seats, floor, interior panels, windows, and dashboard, including areas where critical wiring and cables are located.”

When Siemens saw the dog inside the helicopter, he complained to the officers.

“He expressed concern that the dog could damage the helicopter, including the dashboard area, which contains critical wiring and instrumentation. He urged them to use less destructive alternatives,” the decision reads.

He described the search as “unwarranted and destructive.”

Siemens claimed the Border Services officers admitted to the damage and told him he could file a complaint for compensation.

The same day, he filed a complaint with Canada Border Services Agency – complete with photos of the damage and a repair estimate.

However, the Canada Border Services Agency denied the claim, saying in part that the damage may have preexisted.

Through his company, Epic West Helicopters, he then took the Canada Border Services Agency to the BC Supreme Court, looking for compensation.

The decision didn’t say how much the alleged damage came to, but a reference to the small claims court appears to show that it was under $35,000.

In the decision, Canada Border Services denied that its officers would have told him they caused the damage, and to claim compensation.

Most of Siemens’ claims are dismissed because of a strict three-month limitation period.

He argued he had to wait for the internal complaint to be refused before he could take legal action, so the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply.

However, the Justice dismissed the claims, saying it was “plainly out of time.”

Siemens claimed that the officers went “far beyond a legitimate inspection,” acted “recklessly” or “high-handedly,” and told him to file a claim which they’d pay.

He accused them of misfeasance in public office, saying their actions were deliberately unlawful and for an improper purpose.

However, the Justice didn’t buy it.

“Misfeasance requires much more than this,” the Justice said. “It is not enough to allege that the officers were careless, insensitive, used poor judgment, or failed to appreciate the sensitivity of the helicopter’s interior.”

Ultimately, the Justice dismissed the claim, but said the decision might seem “harsh” under the circumstances.

“I appreciate that the outcome of this application may feel unsatisfactory from (Siemens’) perspective,” the Justice said. “Mr. Siemens, promptly raised concerns about the condition of the helicopter, participated fully in the Canada Border Services Agency’s internal process, and was provided with no information about any rights of appeal, review, or limitation periods governing further steps. (He) found (himself) navigating a complex statutory scheme while seeking to preserve its right to recover for what it believed was genuine damage.”

While Siemens lost, the Justice didn’t order him to pay the Border Services Agency’s court costs, saying this was a case where it was appropriate to depart from the ordinary rule.