FILE PHOTO.

Image Credit: FACEBOOK: American Hairless Terrier AHT

A BC couple that spent $3,500 on a hairless dog but then returned it days later claiming it had severe allergies on its paws have ended up in court.

According to a June 26 BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Natalia and Mikhail Molchanova splashed out on the pricey pooch and specifically told breeder Dina Osadchaya they needed a dog without any allergies.

However, after owning the American hairless terrier for just four days, the couple said the dog, called Kolya, had developed a severe allergy on its paws.

"They say Kolya’s paws were red with broken skin, and Kolya was constantly biting his paws. They also say Kolya refused to eat breakfast," the decision reads.

The couple returned Kolya to Osadchaya and asked for their money back. Osadchaya offered a 75% refund.

READ MORE: BC dog has ownership fate decided by court

The couple then took the breeder to the online small claims court saying she'd misrepresented Kolya’s condition.

The decision says the Molchanova's submitted photos and video of Kolya as evidence it had allergies.

"I find the photograph shows some redness on the bottom of one of Kolya’s paws, but I cannot tell from the photograph whether the redness is due to irritation, allergies, or something else," the Tribunal ruled.

The couple also submitted a video of Koyla chewing and scratching his paws – which they claimed was the symptom of an ongoing allergic reaction and proves that they weren't sold a healthy puppy.

However, the Tribunal ruled the photos and video didn't show that the hairless dog was unhealthy or had an ongoing allergic reaction.

"The problem for the applicants is that they have not provided expert evidence that shows Kolya had any allergies or allergic reaction, either short-term or ongoing, or was otherwise unhealthy," the Tribunal ruled.

For their part, Osadchaya submitted a veterinarian report she obtained the day Kolya was returned.

The vet said the dog had a "mild follicular rush as the dorsum, suspect sebaceous gland impaction" which was "not a concern" and "specific for the breed," and would resolve with age.

The report stated that Koyla had "no irritation on the skin" and was "apparently healthy."

READ MORE: Kelowna dangerous dog avoids death sentence but owner on the hook for $12,000

The couple accused the vet of bias as the vet had a personal relationship with the breeder.

"However, they provided no evidence to support this allegation," the Tribunal ruled. "I also note the evidence shows (Osadchaya) offered to have Kolya examined by a veterinarian of the (couple's) choice after Kolya was returned, but (they) declined to do so."

The breeder also submitted another vet's report from a different veterinarian months later that showed that Kolya had normal skin and a coat with no rash.

"I find this evidence shows Koyla was healthy and allergy-free at the time of purchase, and continued to be healthy and allergy-free after being returned," the Tribunal ruled.

READ MORE: Vernon woman braves the elements to save her dog

The Tribunal said while the breeder had offered a 75% refund, this offer wasn't binding and the couple wasn't entitled to a partial refund for the dog.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the couple's case, leaving them dogless and $3,500 out of pocket, plus the $125 it cost them to file the claim at the small claims court.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © iNFOnews, 2023