Jessica Jonathan Yaniv Simpson vs. A Pomchi

Jessica Jonathan Yaniv Simpson, aka Fat Jon,

According to new information in these documents the time line is thus…

July 18, 2025: some sort of incident occurred between Alison Savenkoff and Fat Jon – and it is on video. This certainly makes it even clearer that the lawsuit is retribution.

July 26, 2025: Fat Jon claims the dog bit incident occurred. Savenkoff provided lobby video evidence, we suspect shows Fat Jon was not a the location or that Savenkoff was not at the location at the time the dog incident is alleged to have occurred.

July 29, 2025: Langley Animal Control Officer (LAPS) is called by Fat Jon with a false report.

July 31, 2025: Miriam Yaniv assaulted Sharron Brown (Fat Jon has since made a terrible AI song about the woman and named it after her even) and Miriam Yaniv uttered death threats to Alison Savenkoff that day – at the senior citizen condo building.

Miriam was arrested and charged.

August 19, 2025: Laps attend the senior building and assess the Pomchi and deemed the claim false.

September 12, 2025: In typical Fat Jon fashion sued Alison Savenkoff claiming her little wee Pomeranian dog assaulted and injured his fat ankles.

LAPS notification sent to the plaintiff on or around Sept 21, 2025, that the claim is closed.

Miriam received a probation of sorts for the assault in December 2025, with terms into 2026.

June 2026 Affidavits (New Document)

Thanks to the donation from our supporter that went to the court house to pay for these papers, MM present to you the updated case file.

The most intriguing part is the LAPS Report – Exhibit “G” – the documents also provide more timeline items that reaffirm that MM’s opinion that this lawsuit was filed in retaliation for events in July. It should also be noted Fat Jon is banned from the Senior Building and by all accounts has stayed clear of getting into legal trouble and hasn’t accessed the building.

Plaintiff’s Position (from the Notice of Civil Claim – Exhibit “A”):

Fat Jon claims that on or about July 26, 2025 (around mid-afternoon, e.g., ~3:20–4:20 p.m.), while he was on the 4th floor of the strata building at/near 8880 202 Street, Langley, BC, waiting at the elevator with his leashed medical service dog, the defendants’ dog (described as a Pomeranian or Pomchi) attacked him without warning or provocation.

The dog allegedly bit him on the left leg/ankle, and when he reached down to remove it, bit him on the right hand.
He alleges resulting injuries including scarring to the right hand, injury to the left leg/ankle, plus stress and anxiety.
He claims the defendants (neighbors in adjacent units: Weller at Unit 421/PH21 area and Savenkoff at Unit 419/PH19 area) collectively or individually owned, controlled, and were responsible for the dog and the common areas of the property as occupiers.
Legal claims include: negligence, breach of the Occupiers Liability Act (duty to keep the premises reasonably safe), the doctrine of scienter (owner liability for animal actions), and violations of the Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control By-Law (failure to leash, confine, or muzzle an allegedly aggressive dog).
He seeks general damages, special damages, past/future health care costs recovery under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, interest, and costs.

Defendants’ Positions (from their Responses to Civil Claim – Exhibits “B” and “C”):

Both defendants filed responses in late 2025 denying all liability and putting the plaintiff to strict proof.

Alison Patricia Savenkoff (filed Oct 27, 2025): Admits some basic residency facts but denies the incident occurred as alleged (or at all). She admits owning a small (~5 lb, 5-year-old) Pomchi dog named Leah but states that Leah never bit, attacked, or touched the plaintiff. She denies the dog was aggressive or had any history of aggression. She also raises alternative defenses.
Michael Allen Weller (filed Nov 26, 2025): Denies the incident occurred as alleged (or at all) and denies the plaintiff suffered the claimed injuries. He specifically states he is not the owner of the dog and did not own a dog at the time. He alleges any injury (if proven) was caused by the plaintiff’s own actions, such as failing to control his own dog (allegedly designated aggressive and initiating interaction), provoking the dog, or intervening in a dog dispute.

Key Supporting Evidence from Defendants’ Side (LAPS Report – Exhibit “G” and related documents):

The defendants produced a redacted 20-page Langley Animal Protection Society (LAPS) / Township of Langley file (Complaint #41298, opened July 29, 2025) as document 1.5 in their list of documents.

The plaintiff reported the alleged bite to LAPS on July 29, 2025, describing a small dark brown/tan Pomeranian let out unsupervised from a residence (linked to “Mike Weller,” units PH19/PH21), biting his ankle then hand. He mentioned post-incident interaction with a man (later identified as Mike Weller) and his companion Alison, who Fat Jon described as unhelpful/indifferent.
Animal Control Officer (ACO) Krista Shaw investigated promptly: requested the plaintiff’s detailed incident statement (provided, describing the attack, and the defendants’ alleged reaction); requested building video footage for the relevant time on the 4th floor/elevator area.
Building staff confirmed: “There are no cameras on the 4th floor.” No video evidence supported the incident.
ACO attended the premises (Aug 19, 2025), met the defendants (who stated they were not home at the time of the alleged incident), and observed the dog Leah, who approached in a friendly manner, showed no aggression or signs of fear, and even laid down.
The ACO noted inconsistencies (including that the defendants’ statements and the plaintiff’s did not fully align) and lack of corroborating evidence.
Conclusion in the LAPS file: The complaint was deemed unfounded. There was “no evidence to support that the Incident occurred,” and the file was closed with no further action (notification sent to the plaintiff on or around Sept 21, 2025).

The defendants’ lists of documents also reference photographs and video footage (on CD), which may relate to the scene, injuries, or other cameras in the building.

Overall prognosis for defendants: Favorable position due to the independent investigation concluding “unfounded” and absence of video evidence. Many similar disputed dog bite claims resolve in favor of defendants or via low/no-payment settlements when corroboration is weak.

Overall prognosis for Fat Jon Uphill battle without strong independent evidence (e.g., contemporaneous photos of fresh bite marks, medical confirmation of dog-bite injuries, witnesses, or other video). Success would depend heavily on Fat Jon’s credibility… LOL

This sequence strongly supports MeowMix’s view that the dog-bite civil claim appears to be retribution for the July 18, 2025 incident and the July 31 assault incident between the plaintiff’s mother and defendant Alison Savenkoff.

Key implications:

The alleged dog bite occurred only days after the family conflict between Fat Jon and Alison, and days later there was the assault by his mother that led to criminal charges against Mad Miriam.
The civil claim was filed right after these incidents.
LAPS investigation outcome: Just days after the alleged dog bite (and days after the prior family conflict), animal control investigated and found no evidence the dog attack happened. The dog was observed as friendly, the defendants stated they were not home, there were no cameras on the 4th floor, and the file was closed as unfounded.
Motive and bad faith: The defendants now have a powerful narrative: shortly after the plaintiff’s mother was criminally charged in connection with defendant Alison, the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit alleging the defendants’ dog attacked her — an incident that independent animal control could not substantiate.

Likely Outcomes – The defendants’ position is very strong:

Summary judgment / early dismissal — The combination of no corroborating evidence from LAPS, the defendants’ sworn denials, and the clear retaliatory timeline gives them good grounds to seek dismissal of the claim.
Costs — If the claim is dismissed or settled on unfavourable terms for the plaintiff, the court could award substantial costs to the defendants, potentially on a higher scale if bad faith or retaliation is established.
Settlement pressure — Defendants have even more leverage to push for a dismissal with costs or a very low (or zero) settlement.
Trial — If it reaches trial, the June 18, 2025 events and resulting criminal charges against Miriam Yaniv would likely be admissible on the issues of credibility and motive. The LAPS investigator’s testimony would carry significant weight.