Woman sues sister for $120,000 after pit bull attack at Kelowna family gathering

A BC woman who sued her sister for $120,000 after a dog bit her at a family gathering in Kelowna has been left empty-handed after the judge dismissed the case.

According to a Jan. 9 BC Supreme Court decision, Tracey McConville was at her sister’s second home in Kelowna for a family gathering when she was attacked by a pit bull mix named Vinnie.

Tracey accused her sister, Laurie McConville, of failing to control the dog and headed to court, arguing that her sister should pay her $120,000 for the dog’s attack.

The decision said the incident happened in May 2021, when the extended family had gathered at Laurie’s second home in Kelowna, where she frequently hosted family gatherings.

After dinner, while most of the family was on the deck, Tracey went to put a leash on Vinnie.

“She put the treat on the ground for Vinnie and reached for his collar. As she reached for him, Vinnie suddenly turned, lunged at Tracey and bit down on her arm,” the decision reads. “Tracey staggered and fell, screaming in pain.”

Tracey suffered five or six painful punctures on her right arm, which she says left lasting scars.

She went to Kelowna General Hospital and had the wounds cleared up and bandaged before being discharged later that day.

The case went to a seven-day trial, in which half a dozen family members testified.

The crux of the issue was who owned the dog.

Tracey claimed that Vinnie was owned by Laurie, while Laurie said Vinnie was owned by her daughter, Vanessa and her son, Trevor.

After parsing through the evidence, Justice Bruce Elwood ruled that Vinnie was Venessa’s dog.

The matter didn’t end there as the family argued over the dog’s prior behaviour, an issue the Justice noted that “differed dramatically.”

In assessing whether Vinnie was dangerous, the family members testified at length about a prior incident at a family gathering the year before.

It was Christmas Day 2020, and about 14 to 18 family members gathered in an Airbnb apartment in the Lower Mainland. 

“Vinnie roamed freely through the gathering, socializing with the guests. At some point… Vinnie became excited, or agitated, depending on the witness, and began running around,” the Justice said. 

A family member was worried the dog was going to jump on a small child and picked the child up. Another person grabbed Vinnie by the collar and put him on the deck.

“The gathering continued, and Vinnie was eventually let back inside without further incident,” the Justice said.

A week later, the family gathered at the same apartment for New Year’s Eve.

“Again, at some point, Vinnie became excited or agitated and started running around. Brandon put him out on the deck again, the party continued, and Vinnie eventually returned,” the decision said.

However, Tracey’s evidence was quite different.

“She testified that, on both occasions, Vinnie was baring his teeth and lunging at people, and that everyone was scared. She testified that, on December 25, several people got up on chairs and guests were screaming in fear,” the Justice said. “She testified that Vinnie lunged at the little girl, and that the child barely escaped being bitten.”

Justice Elwood said her evidence wasn’t credible and pointed to a prior statement under oath where she said she had no knowledge that Vinnie was ever aggressive towards anyone, and when she was attacked, it was a complete shock.

When this was put to her, she testified that she gave this evidence because Laurie persuaded her to say that Vinnie was not aggressive.

“She testified that she went along with this ruse because Laurie said she was ‘going to go through insurance'” the decision reads.

Laurie denied any attempt to influence Tracey’s evidence.

“Even assuming that Laurie asked Tracey to say Vinnie was not aggressive, however, I find it very troubling that Tracey would take the affirmation she gave to tell the truth at the discovery so lightly that she would say things she knew were untrue simply because she thought it might help her obtain an insurance payment,” the Justice said. “Moreover, Tracey’s own conduct belies her description of Vinnie’s behaviour. She returned to the same Airbnb to attend a crowded party with Vinnie, just seven days after she says the dog went on a rampage, lunging at people and attempting to bite a child.”

The Justice said that if Vinnie had shown the unprovoked violent aggression that Tracey claimed happened during the Christmas gathering, it would be “highly improbable” she would have attempted to put a leash on the dog.

“As a result, I put no weight on Tracey’s evidence of Vinnie’s behaviour,” the Justice said.

Ultimately, after hearing testimony from numerous family members, Justice Elwood dismissed the case.

However, in an unusual move, the Justice ruled that if the case had been successful, he would have awarded $10,000, not the $120,000 Tracey wanted.

Tracey is now left with court costs and legal bills.

Vinnie had died before the case went to court.