A Chilliwack man was awarded $60,000 in damages from a B.C. Supreme Court judge for being bitten by a police dog as officers were trying to arrest him for domestic assault.
The plaintiff, Noll Grenfal, 47, alleged in his suit against defendants Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and the Attorney General, that he was a victim of "assault and battery" on March 8, 2020 after receiving bites to his forearm from the police service dog.
The officer had released the barking dog when Grenfal wouldn't assume the prone position after kneeling and raising his hands.
The court heard that the attending officers had been advised that the subject had "grabbed his partner by the wrists and and dragged her out of her bed by the ankles," and had uttered threats against people and pets. He was alleged to have used a knife to slash the soft top of his partner's Jeep, rammed a truck, screamed at his partner while smashing and throwing things.
During the court proceeding held in June and July of 2024 in Abbotsford, Grenfal denied assaulting his partner, slashing the Jeep or ramming the truck.
"I reject his evidence on this point," Judge Michael Thomas wrote in his Aug. 30 reasons for judgment, adding it was inconsistent with evidence from the abuse victim.
"I found her evidence during the 911 call to be very persuasive."
Grenfal also denied being drunk on the evening of March 7, the night before the police dog bit him, but the hospital records indicated that he had been in the hospital for substance intoxication and anxiety.
Grenfal also denied threatening his partner from a pay phone, but the records show he did, and he said there were several officers pointing a gun at him where there was only one.
"I find Mr. Grenfal91ÂãÁÄÊÓƵ™s testimony as a whole to be self-serving and unreliable," Judge Thomas stated in his reasons.
The "liability" in this case depended on whether the officer released the police dog in accordance with the criminal code, he said.
Police had been advised that the man was out in his barn where he keeps his tools.
"They correctly perceived that Mr. Grenfal was subjecting his partner to escalating violent behaviour and properly characterized the situation as one where Mr. Grenfal posed a risk of 'grievous bodily harm or death.'"
The officer had ordered Grenfal on his knees and then to lay down facing forward, and he sank to his knees with his hands up, but did not "prone out on the ground."
"The fact that a knife was found outside the house in a damp space by the hot tub, which I find to be consistent with Mr. Grenfal having a knife and slashing the Jeep. I reject Mr. Grenfal91ÂãÁÄÊÓƵ™s explanation that he left the knife out by the hot tub days earlier while he was waiting for parts to install on the hot tub. In my view, this is inconsistent with how he would look after his tools."
The judge also found the officer had erred in releasing the dog.
"In my view, Corporal Carey was focused on quickly arresting Mr. Grenfal from the moment he arrived at the scene. This is understandable given the information provided to him by dispatch from the 911 call. However, during the encounter, Cpl. Carey erred and acted unreasonably in rushing to release the PSD (police services dog) to force Mr. Grenfal onto the ground on the basis that 'time was of the essence.'
"Time was not of the essence, in the absence of a cue that Mr. Grenfal was initiating an attack on them or attempting to get to his partner in the house."
The judge decided the officer erred.
"His conduct was not high-handed. I have found the opposite; his intentions were good but he was overly focused on providing immediate assistance to a victim of assault."
Grenfal was awarded $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, and $20,000 in loss of past income for a total of $60,000.
