Emotional trial underway for Yellowknife lawyer whose dog attacked another dog

A veterinarian breaking down in tears on the witness stand. A photograph of blood spattered on a driveway.

Those are just a few of the dramatic moments that took place in a Yellowknife courtroom Wednesday, stemming from a deadly dog altercation on Finlayson Drive last June.

WilliamChueng testified that he was walking three dogs on the sidewalk when he noticed "a dog barrelling straight at us" from a house.

The dog, which Chueng described as grey and pitbull-like, proceeded to latch on to the underbelly of Chueng's dog. The larger dog's owner, lawyer Douglas McNiven, rushed to the scene and attempted to separate the dogs. Chueng and a passer-by also tried to open the dog's jaws, but she held firm until McNiven's daughter arrived with a container of water.

Chueng described for the court the resulting injuries to his pet: a large wound, a lot of stitching, two tubes installed to allow fluid to drain.

That's when Jay Bran, McNiven's lawyer, interrupted to point out the dog's injuries aren't at issue.McNivenis facing two charges, both stemming from Yellowknife's dog bylaw: having a dog at large and having a dog that bites someone without provocation.

His trial began Wednesday in front of N.W.T. Territorial Court Judge Donovan Molloy.

An emotional vet

Chueng's dog, Abby, was put down two days later by Michael Hughes, a veterinarian and owner of the Yellowknife Veterinary Clinic. Hughes testified about the dog's injuries, which the judge allowed was "important to the narrative," and about conversations he had with McNiven last summer.

He recounted one conversation where he suggested McNiven build a fence in his front yard to prevent something like this from happening again.

McNiven's response, Hughes said, was that he didn't want to spend the money, and that "if people don't want my dog to attack them then they shouldn't walk in front of my house."

"I said, 'Doug, that is goddamn bullshit.'"

A few minutes later, Hughes was in tears. He explained that he knew both Chueng and McNiven well before the incident.

"I consider them both friends and that's what's so hard about this."

Fingers injured

Chueng also suffered injuries, from putting his hands into the larger dog's mouth to try to pry open its jaw.

"I thought the whole index was going to be gone," Chueng told the court.

He visited the hospital, where he bumped into McNiven, who was also there to have his hands looked at.

Chueng also faced an aggressive cross-examination.

Bran asked Chueng why he didn't choose a different route to walk his dogs. The judge interrupted that line of questioning and said: "Walking down the street with your dog does not constitute a provocation."

If people don't want my dog to attack them then they shouldn't walk in front of my house.- Veterinarian Michael Hughes quoting Douglas McNiven

Examining a photo of Chueng's dog introduced as evidence, Bran asked whether it wastaken on the baseball diamond of Parker Park, where dogs are not allowed. "What's the relevance?" the judge asked.

Bran questioned Chueng on whether he had been drinking or using drugs at the time of the incident. No, said Chueng, who was walking his dogs on his lunch break at the time.

Bran also asked Chueng whether or not he had asked McNiven for money "to make this go away." Chueng said no.

'A big mistake'

Taking the stand himself, McNiven testified that the attack was a "freak accident," caused because he "made a big mistake" by attaching his dog, Aloha, to a tether in his front yard instead of putting her into the house while he loaded his Jeep for a dump run.

He explained that Aloha normally stayed in the fenced backyard or on a leash, and that the tether attached to a groundstake that spiraled into his lawn was from a previous dog who did spend time in the front yard.

Unfortunately, McNiven said, the plastic latch on Aloha's collar broke, allowing her to get away. He showed the collar, and the tether, to the courtroom, though the collar held firm when he was asked by the judge to demonstrate how it was broken.

McNivengave evidence that he paid both of Chueng's vet bills, one for $2,575 and the other for $1,602.

McNivenalso recalled a testy conversation with Chueng who drove over straight from the hospital. He said he was "surprised" by the visit, and afraid that Chueng "might hit me or something." He recalled telling his wife, "I thought he was trying to shake me down," meaning, he clarified, that Chuengwanted money.

McNiven's lawyerthen introduced a booklet of photos showing Aloha being hugged by a child, cuddling with another dog and cat, and wearing pink sparkly clothing a child had dressed her up in.

That's when court adjourned for the day.

The penalty

The prosecutors, city lawyers Keith Sulzer and Kerry Penney, have not told the court what penalty they're seeking.

Under the bylaw, a dog owner can face a fine of up to $2,500 and a jail term of three months for a first offence, and a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail term of six months for a second.

The court can also order the dog destroyed, and prevent the accused from owning dogs for a period of time.

As for the dog who died, the city's dog bylaw is silent on what happens when a dog injures another dog.

The trial was originally scheduled to last one day. So far 15exhibits have been introduced, including a photo of blood spattered on McNiven's driveway and shots from inside his house. Four witnesses have testified with a fifth still to come.

The trial is now expected to resume Thursday morning with cross-examination of McNiven.