In Ontario, dog owners are responsible for their dog’s actions. If a dog bites a person or another animal, the dog’s owner is responsible.  It does not matter if the owner did nothing wrong. It does not matter if the owner did not know about the dog’s aggressive behaviour.  This is explained in the Dog Owners’ Liability Act.

What matters then is obviously the dog’s actions but also who is the owner of the dog.  The Dog Owners’ Liability Act defines “owner” as someone who possesses or harbours the dog.  If that person is under the age 18, the dog owner will be the person responsible for the minor, like a parent.

In most cases, it’s not difficult to identify the dog’s owner. However, in a recent court case, the Court of Appeal of Ontario had to decide who the owner of the dog was.

In the case of Wilk v. Arbour 2017 ONCA 21 (CanLII), Ms. Wilk was bitten by Mr. Arbour’s Great Dane dog.  The facts of this case made it difficult to determine who the “owner” of the dog was.

At the time of the incident, Ms. Wilk and Mr. Arbour were in a relationship.  On the morning of the incident, Ms. Wilk offered to take the dog for a walk.  During the walk, the dog suffered a seizure and became unconscious.  When he regained consciousness, he came out of his collar, and slipped and fell into a ditch.  While trying to retrieve the dog, Ms. Wilk also slipped into the ditch.  She collided with the dog and he bit her thumb. As a result, Ms. Wilk partially lost her thumb.

Mr. Arbour said that Ms. Wilk was in possession of the dog at the time of the incident and therefore was considered the dog’s owner. If this position is accepted, Ms. Wilk could not claim damages against Mr. Arbour because she was the dog’s owner pursuant to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act.

Ms. Wilk alleged that the Dog Owners’ Liability Act imposes responsible dog ownership and not responsibility on the person who only has physical possession of the dog at the time in question. If this position is accepted, Ms. Wilk would be entitled to recover damages from Mr. Arbour.

The Court of Appeal determined that: “the word “possesses” in the definition of owner under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act includes a person who is in physical possession and has control over a dog just before it bites or attacks another person or animal.” (Paragraph 36 of the Court of Appeal decision)

Therefore, Ms. Wilk, as owner of the dog at the time of the incident, could not recover any damages from Mr. Arbour.

If you or a family member has been injured by a dog, call one of the lawyers at Burn Tucker Lachaîne.  Our initial consultation is free. You can come to our accessible office with free parking in Ottawa or we can visit you at home or at the hospital.  We offer legal services in French and English. Visit our website site at www. burntucker.com for more information.

Enjoy this article? Don't forget to share.

Vous avez aimé cet article? N'oublie pas de partager.