A bizarre legal battle unfolding in British Columbia has ignited widespread public indignation as a specialized canine training facility faces severe penalties over what many are calling bureaucratic overreach. The case, which involves the We Go Service Dogs training center in Lavington, has raised serious questions about the intersection of municipal regulations and essential service animal training.
The facility, operated by Dianne Sveinson, now faces potential daily fines of $100 and an order to cease operations after a Vernon court ruled against the center for zoning violations. This decision comes despite the facility’s vital role in training service dogs that provide life-changing support for individuals with disabilities.
“It’s utterly outrageous,” stated Paul Mitchell, the lawyer representing Sveinson in the case. “We’re talking about a facility that trains service dogs for people with profound needs, including veterans with PTSD and children with autism. The idea that municipal bylaws would shut down such an operation is unconscionable.”
The legal dispute centers on North Okanagan Regional District’s claim that Sveinson’s property, which sits on agricultural land, cannot legally operate as a commercial dog training facility under current zoning regulations. Officials maintain that regardless of the facility’s charitable purpose, zoning laws must be uniformly enforced.
However, supporters of We Go Service Dogs point to numerous similar operations across Canada that function without issue. The facility has trained over 40 service dogs since its establishment, with each animal requiring approximately two years of specialized training before being placed with individuals in need.
“These aren’t ordinary pets,” explained Dr. Elena Kowalski, a psychologist who works with service dog recipients. “These animals undergo rigorous training to perform specific tasks that allow people with disabilities to function independently. The economic and social benefits far outweigh any minor zoning concerns.”
The case has attracted attention from political figures as well, with several local representatives expressing concern about the precedent this ruling could set. Provincial disability advocates have called for immediate legislative intervention to protect similar facilities from closure.
According to court documents, Sveinson has invested over $300,000 in specialized training equipment and facility modifications. The center employs five full-time trainers and contributes an estimated $450,000 annually to the local economy.
“This isn’t just about one training facility,” said Mitchell. “This is about whether our communities truly support accessibility and independence for people with disabilities. The current interpretation of these bylaws effectively prioritizes land use technicalities over human needs.”
The court has granted Sveinson 90 days to either cease operations or apply for a formal rezoning application, a process that could take up to a year and offers no guarantee of approval. Meanwhile, several families awaiting service dogs from the facility now face extended delays and uncertainty.
As this legal battle continues to unfold in British Columbia’s courts, it raises a profound question for communities across the country: When regulatory frameworks clash with services that enhance quality of life for our most vulnerable citizens, how do we balance the letter of the law against its spirit?
