Ruling notes man tried to protect child from pet's threatening behaviour
The Nova Scotia Small Claims Court has refused to find a defendant liable for injuring a cat upon determining that he accidentally made contact with the animal’s eye while attempting to push it away after it acted aggressively.
In Hunter v Gomez, 2025 NSSM 50, the defendant and his wife described the events of Jan. 25. That morning, they, their toddler, and their young dog left the playground. When they realized the wife had left her gloves behind, the defendant and the leashed dog ran along the community path from Chandler Drive to the playground.
The claimant’s cat approached the wife and the toddler on the path. The wife placed herself between the cat and her child because she had concerns about the animal based on prior experience. However, the cat kept trying to go around her.
When the defendant caught up and saw his wife trying to shield their child from the cat, he positioned himself between the animal and his family. The cat started hissing, spitting, and swiping. The defendant tried pushing the cat away with his shoe and then with a ball-throwing stick he used to play with his dog. The cat ran away.
The claimant sought to recover veterinary costs and expenses due to the injury the defendant inflicted upon the cat. Veterinarian documents accompanying the claim provided that the cat had injuries mainly to his right eye, which resulted in its removal.
The defendant admitted that his contact with the cat on Jan. 25 caused the injuries stated in the veterinarian’s documents and that the veterinary treatment cost $2,557.23. He alleged that he attempted to move the cat away to defend his child and dog from the cat’s threatening behaviour.
The claimant countered that the defendant gave evidence that was not credible, overreacted, and lacked grounds to do what he did. The claimant said his cat:
- did not likely engage in behaviour representing any real threat of injury to the defendant’s family, even if it included hissing, spitting, and swiping
- did not deserve a blow to the head impacting his eye, regardless of any perception of danger
Defendant not liable
The Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia ruled that the claimant failed to establish grounds for the defendant’s liability.
The court accepted that the ball-throwing stick’s tip touched or grazed the claimant’s cat. However, the court determined that the impact was not a hard swing.
The court rejected the claimant’s arguments. First, the court noted that the claimant had the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities.
Second, the court said it could not question the defendant’s perception that the cat’s hissing, spitting, and swiping – which the claimant accepted as a possibility – might present a risk to the child or young dog.
The court found that the cat took a menacing stance in a narrow and enclosed space, blocked the defendant’s and his family’s progress down the path, and refused to retreat.
The court said the cat’s possible reaction to the dog’s presence or a perceived threat did not negate the defendant’s perception that the cat posed a real danger. The court added that suggesting that the cat posed no real threat at the time amounted to “arm-chair quarterbacking after the fact.”
Third, the court decided that the defendant was entitled to try to move the cat away using his shoe and then his ball-throwing stick, given his reasonable perception of the animal’s acts as threatening.
Fourth, the court addressed the issue of the stick’s contact with the cat’s eye. The court accepted that a minor or fleeting contact with an eye, notoriously sensitive to injury, could lead to severe and lasting damage, which unfortunately happened to the cat here.
However, the court concluded that the defendant did not intentionally aim for the cat’s eye and did not unreasonably, violently, or brutally beat the animal with the stick.
