Boston Bar man who killed neighbour's teacup chihuahua in Hatfield-McCoy-style dispute seeks return of seized firearms
Berhouz Rahmani Far claimed Glenn Kurack's dogs were killing his egg-laying chickens
One of two men involved in a Hatfield-McCoy-style dispute in the Fraser Canyon wants the gun back that he used to shoot and kill his neighbour’s teacup chihuahua blamed for killing chickens.
Berhouz Rahmani Far was in provincial court in Chilliwack on Thursday (June 5, 2025) asking for an extension to an order for him to find a designated person to hold his firearms until his three-year prohibition is over.
On Sept. 27, 2024, Judge Peter Whyte found Rahmani Far guilty of killing Bear the chihuahua with a .22 calibre rifle by shooting the dog in the head as it was in his yard near his chickens. He was convicted of killing or injuring an animal under section 445 of the criminal code.
“After he shot Bear, Mr. Rahmani Far immediately called the police to report it,” Judge Whyte said in his decision. “He said he shot Bear ‘…to bring the peace in my life.’ He said he regretted having to take such a drastic measure, but felt he had no other choice.”
On April 7, 2025, Judge Whyte sentenced the 65-year-old to two years probation with a three-year firearms prohibition. That included a forfeiture of the .22 used to kill along along with other weapons in his possession. Police seized the weapons and Rahmani Far was ordered to appoint a designated person by May 5, 2025, to attend the Chilliwack RCMP detachment to pick up and hold the firearms until his sentence is prohibition.
Despite being ordered to do so in writing, and being told this by the judge and his own lawyer, he did not. Instead, he applied this week to have this date extended to June 20 to find a designated person.
“Mr. Rahmani Far misunderstood the forfeiture order,” his lawyer Affan Bawja told the court. “It’s a mistake on his part.”
Crown counsel opposed the application to extend, pointing out there is no statutory authority to vary the original order and since the weapons have now been forfeited because the deadline date has past, Rahmani Far has no right of possession any more. Beyond those issues it was argued that he still shouldn’t get the extension because the spirit of the order was to have this designation completed so the weapons don’t languish with the RCMP.
Judge Kristen Mundstock, however, granted Rahmani Far the two-week extension after which time the weapons will be forfeited to the attorney general if he hasn’t complied.
Bear, the Chicken, duelling neighbours
Berhouz Rahmani Far and Glenn Kurack live on adjacent properties in Boston Bar, 65 kilometres north of Hope in the Fraser Canyon.
“By all accounts, the two do not get along,” Judge Whyte said with understated brevity in his decision.
At the time of trial, Kurack was under a court-ordered condition not to have contact with Rahmani Far following a conviction for assault from Feb. 1, 2023 related to an incident in 2020. Just two months ago, on April 3, 2025, Kurack was sentenced to 18 months jail for a domestic sexual assault conviction from Boston Bar in April 2022. In that case, charges of sexual assault and unlawful confinement from September 2022 were dropped.
“Each spoke about the other in their testimony in uniformly negative terms, blaming the other for initiating and maintaining a neighbour conflict that had gone on for some five years prior to the incident,” Judge Whyte wrote. “Each had made multiple calls of complaint to the RCMP, resulting in many RCMP attendances to investigate or keep the peace.”
Kurack owned two large dogs that he told the court were Burmese Mountain dogs crossed with wolves, and two small chihuahuas.
Rahmani Far kept as many as 60 chickens on his property for egg production. The chickens had a building to stay in at night and roamed freely on his property during the day.
One time in 2021, the RCMP called Kurack to tell him that one of his chihuahuas was on Rahmani Far’s property, that the dog had killed a chicken, and that Rahmani Far felt their safety was in danger so the dog might have to be shot.
“It appears that Mr. Kurack did not take the call seriously," Judge Whyte said. "[H]e said he was laughing with his friends at the idea that his teacup chihuahua, which he said weight about four pounds, could pose a threat to a chicken, let alone a human.”
Still, he offered to pay for the chicken and saw no evidence that his dogs had killed any chickens.
The two made various bad-neighbourly accusations about one another, called one another liars, escalating with claims by Kurack that Rahmani Far had threatened to shoot his dogs and once pointed a firearm at Kurack and a housesitter, which Rahmnai Far denied.
On March 3, 2022, Kurack came home from work to find a hole in a fence and he was waved down by Rahmani Far. Bear was rolled in a ball after being shot dead.
After he killed Bear, Rahmani called the police to report it. He said at first he did it not to protect his chickens but to protect his family, including grandchildren, and that he shot Bear “to bring the peace in my life.”
He also claimed the he believed he shot Bear lawfully under the Livestock Act, which he thought allowed him to kill a dog directly threatening his chickens. He claimed Kurack’s dogs had killed as many as 20 of his birds prior to the incident at bar, however the majority were killed when they flew into Kurack’s yard, some were found drowned in a pond, and Rahmani Far said he never witnessed an attack.
Judge Whyte found that Rahmani’s reliance on defence of property or the so-called “Colour of Right” were lacking. Chickens are not covered under the Livestock Act, but the Colour of Right defence is such that if an accused honestly believes an element of civil law, it can negate the mens rea – the guilty mind – of the offence.
As for defence of property, that allows for shooting a dog in self-defence or shooting a dog to protect animals if at the time of the shooting the dog was actually attacking or if left at large it was likely to renew the attack.
Judge Whyte found, however, that after missing Bear with two initial shots, by his own admission, the chihuahua was actually trying to leave the property before Rahmani Far shot it dead. Rahmani Far also did not rely on any other less deadly options such as chasing or yelling or throwing someting at Bear.
“Moreover, Mr. Rahmani Far agreed in cross-examination that he may have been able to scare the dog away. He said however, that he wasn’t doing that, and that he had had enough.”
For this reason, the defence of property did not apply, nor did the Colour or Right because whether or not he was mistaken about the Livestock Act was irrelevant.
“This is because Mr. Rahmani Far stated in his evidence that he intended to kill the dog if and when it appeared again on his property, whether or not it posed a real and present danger to his chickens.
“In this sense, Mr. Rahmani Far relied on a moral right, and not a private law.”
Rahmani Far was convicted of killing the dog in September 2024 and given the suspended sentence in April 2025. He is forbidden from possessing firearms until April 2028. If he can find a designated person by June 20 to hold his firearms for him until his sentence expires, they will be handed over. If not, they become property of the attorney general.
-30-
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social