In Ontario, dog bites and attacks are primarily governed by the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA). This provincial statute creates a structured framework that holds owners, custodians, or anyone “harbouring” a dog accountable for the injuries caused by that animal. Although other civil liability principles can also apply, such as negligence or occupiers’ liability, the central point of reference for most dog bite claims is DOLA. The Act embodies a protective policy stance: to ensure that those harmed by canine aggression can secure fair redress, while motivating owners to adopt proactive measures safeguarding public safety.
One of DOLA’s defining attributes is the use of strict liability for dog-related harm. In a typical civil lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted negligently or intentionally caused harm. By contrast, DOLA’s approach requires the plaintiff to show only that the dog inflicted injury and that the defendant owned, possessed, or controlled the dog at the time. Whether the owner knew of the dog’s prior aggressive tendencies is often irrelevant, though such knowledge (known as scienter) may amplify liability under tort law. The fundamental aim is to reduce the incidence of dog attacks by instilling owners with heightened responsibility and vigilance—particularly when it comes to confining, leashing, or muzzling dogs that might pose a risk.
Ontario lawmakers adopted this robust stance to balance two critical societal interests. First is protecting individuals—be they neighbours, delivery persons, children at a playground, or other dog owners—from suffering disfiguring injuries, emotional trauma, or economic losses. Second is offering an unambiguous, strict standard that clarifies for owners, from the outset, the potential legal consequences of failing to manage or restrain their dogs. Although strict liability may seem stringent, it encourages responsible pet ownership and ensures that victims who have done nothing wrong can recover their losses more readily. In rare instances where the dog’s aggression is entirely unforeseeable, owners still may face liability unless they demonstrate an applicable defence.
Beyond strict liability, Ontario’s legal framework embraces broader policy goals:
Prevention of Future Harm: By making dog owners liable for the first attack, the law discourages complacency and compels immediate corrective or remedial steps.
Legislative Flexibility: Municipalities can enact by-laws that build on DOLA, sometimes imposing breed-specific bans or requiring mandatory muzzling for certain dogs.
Shared Community Responsibility: While the Act zeroes in on owners’ accountability, it implicitly encourages neighbours, landlords, and property managers to remain alert and report dogs exhibiting problematic conduct before incidents escalate.
Ontario’s approach thereby operates as a blend of statutory directives and common law principles, forming a multi-layered framework that extends from local dog wardens’ powers (like declaring a dog “dangerous”) to the Civil Justice system’s authority to award damages or order the dog’s destruction under severe circumstances. Ultimately, DOLA and related laws stand as the province’s frontline response against canine aggression, facilitating fair remedies for victims and underscoring the duties that come with dog ownership.
Strict Liability for Owners and Possessors
A standout feature of DOLA is its imposition of strict liability. Under typical negligence-based actions, the injured party must show the owner’s conduct fell below a reasonable standard of care. But in DOLA cases, the plaintiff does not have to prove the owner was negligent or that the dog had a known history of aggression—only that the dog bit or attacked someone (or another animal). This policy stance ensures that the onus lies on dog owners to manage their pets diligently, rather than placing the evidentiary burden on the injured plaintiff to prove a breach of care.
Implications of Strict Liability
Easier Path for Victims: Victims may recover damages more swiftly, as they can rely on evidence that an attack occurred and identify the dog’s owner or keeper.
Heightened Responsibility: Owners cannot simply claim ignorance or argue their dog “never bit anyone before.” Instead, they must demonstrate possible mitigating circumstances—like trespass or criminal activity—if they hope to reduce or negate liability.
Expanded Scope: Even temporary caretakers (e.g., friends, family, pet sitters) can be liable under DOLA if they were “possessing” or “harbouring” the dog during the incident.
Courts consistently underscore that strict liability promotes public safety by requiring owners to assume an elevated standard of precaution—ranging from proper fencing to ensuring dogs with any inclination toward aggression are leashed or muzzled when near strangers. The alternative—placing a heavier legal burden on victims—would risk under-compensation for serious injuries and hinder prompt legal recourse.
Limited Defences
Despite the rigorous nature of strict liability, DOLA does provide a few narrowly interpreted defences. They are not absolute shields but may shift liability fully or partially depending on the facts:
Trespassing or Criminal Acts: If the injured person was trespassing or engaging in criminal activity, such as breaking and entering, the dog owner could argue that the victim’s unlawful behaviour triggered the incident. Courts examine whether the dog’s response was proportionate or whether the trespasser essentially provoked the dog into defending the property.
Reasonable Precautions: While not a direct statutory defence that eliminates strict liability, demonstrating extensive efforts to prevent a dog attack (like fence repairs, advanced training, or dedicated supervision) can influence how courts apportion responsibility or assess damages. In some cases, it might persuade a judge that the owner’s liability should be minimized if the plaintiff clearly contributed to the situation.
Given that DOLA was written to protect the public, courts interpret these exceptions restrictively. For example, mere trespass alone may not absolve an owner if the dog’s attack was unreasonably severe or unrelated to the legitimate defence of the property. Similarly, owners often face difficulty convincing the court that they took every conceivable precaution unless they can show they adhered scrupulously to local by-laws and standard dog-handling best practices.
Scope of Injuries and Potential Damages
Ontario’s dog bite laws cover a broad spectrum of injuries:
Human Victims: This often includes physical bites (resulting in punctures, lacerations, or scarring) but may also extend to knockdowns, collisions, or other interactions if the dog’s aggression or erratic behaviour caused harm (like a cyclist swerving to avoid the dog and crashing). Plaintiffs can seek financial compensation for medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, or psychological trauma.
Other Animals: DOLA also contemplates attacks on other dogs or domestic pets, which can trigger liability for veterinary bills or property damage. Although Canadian courts typically limit awards for emotional distress arising from harm to a pet, owners may still recover related financial losses.
If the dog’s aggression or chasing leads to a bystander being startled into a car accident, liability can extend to those indirect injuries. The overarching question is whether the dog’s conduct proximately caused the harm. Thus, owners must remain mindful that their dog’s behaviour can have wide-ranging consequences beyond a simple bite.
Repeated or severe attacks often invite stricter consequences. Local authorities, under municipal by-laws or court orders, can impose:
Muzzling Orders: Requiring the dog to be muzzled whenever off the owner’s property, mitigating future risk.
Mandatory Leashing: Even in dog-friendly off-leash parks, owners may lose the privilege if their pet poses a demonstrable threat.
Mandatory Spaying/Neutering: Some jurisdictions incorporate rules aimed at reducing aggression linked to intact animals.
Court-Ordered Euthanasia: In extreme cases involving repeated serious harm or a dog deemed uncontrollably dangerous.
Such measures underscore the strong public safety rationale at the heart of Ontario’s dog laws. By curtailing further risk, authorities or judges aim to protect unsuspecting citizens and other animals from injuries that might otherwise recur due to negligent ownership.
Designation as a Dangerous Dog
Beyond general liability under DOLA, Ontario municipalities commonly maintain guidelines for labelling a dog as “dangerous” or “vicious.” Local animal control officers or by-law enforcement personnel might investigate a reported attack, especially if it resulted in significant injuries. If they conclude the dog has a propensity for violence, they may proceed with a formal “dangerous dog” designation. Among the factors often considered are:
Severity of the Attack: Bites that require stitches, surgery, or prolonged medical intervention signal serious aggression.
History of Complaints: Multiple prior reports of the dog exhibiting threatening behaviour, even if no severe bite had yet occurred.
Unprovoked Incidents: Attacks on passersby without any trespass, provocation, or obvious trigger.
Once declared “dangerous,” the dog owner must adhere to local statutes that can dictate not only muzzling and leashing but also quarantine protocols, mandatory insurance coverage, or even structural modifications at home (like building a locked enclosure or kennel). These requirements persist indefinitely unless the owner successfully appeals or petitions for a reduced classification, typically requiring evidence of training, rehabilitation, or a significant passage of time without further incidents.
Owners who ignore or breach the terms tied to a “dangerous dog” designation face various legal repercussions:
Fines and Seizures: Repeated violations can result in escalating fines. Animal services may also impound the dog if the owner demonstrates persistent disregard for safety measures.
Euthanasia Orders: In particularly egregious circumstances—such as repeated serious bites—courts or municipal bodies may order the dog’s destruction to avert ongoing public risk.
Expanded Civil Liability: If a dog labelled “dangerous” attacks another victim, the court often views the owner’s inaction as especially reckless, potentially increasing damage awards.
At its core, this system seeks to balance public protection with the rights of responsible dog owners. While no one wants to see pets euthanized, repeated serious incidents may leave authorities little choice but to intervene aggressively.
Tort Law: Scienter and Negligence
Although DOLA stands at the forefront of dog bite claims, traditional tort principles reinforce or supplement its coverage:
Scienter (Knowledge of Dangerous Propensity): Under common law, if an owner knows—or should know—of the dog’s vicious or aggressive nature, they face potential liability for damages. This principle predates DOLA and remains relevant when a dog’s prior behaviour (like past bites or documented threats) suggests a heightened duty of care. Proving scienter often relies on witness statements, prior complaints to animal control, or veterinarian records that note aggression.
Negligence: Courts can impose liability if the owner’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable person in preventing foreseeable harm. Negligence can arise when owners disregard leash laws, fail to secure their property (gaps in fences, unlocked gates), or leave a dog with known aggressive tendencies unsupervised around children. While strict liability under DOLA might suffice to establish accountability, a parallel negligence claim can underscore the owner’s egregious failings, potentially influencing the quantum of damages or entitling the plaintiff to aggravated or punitive damages if the negligence is particularly blatant.
Occupiers’ Liability Act
When a dog attack happens on private property, the Occupiers’ Liability Act can add another layer of responsibility for the property’s owner or occupant. This statute mandates that occupiers maintain reasonably safe conditions for visitors. If a property owner hosts guests and knowingly allows a dangerous dog to roam free, or fails to warn visitors about the dog’s aggressive tendencies, they can be held liable for subsequent injuries. An individual can be an “occupier” even if not the dog’s legal owner—for instance, a homeowner hosting a friend’s dog. As a result, plaintiffs may sue both the dog owner and the property occupier, broadening the potential pool of defendants.
Ontario’s Pit Bull Ban
Ontario’s breed-specific legislation targeting pit bulls, enacted in 2005, often dovetails with DOLA. Under this law, owning or breeding specific pit bull-type dogs is tightly restricted, with stringent requirements for muzzling, leashing, and confinement. Although the ban primarily targets public safety through preemptive regulation, it does not absolve owners of other breeds from liability. All dog owners remain subject to DOLA’s provisions, meaning any dog—regardless of its breed—can lead to strict liability if it attacks. Moreover, pit bull owners may be subject to added scrutiny. Non-compliance with the ban (e.g., failing to muzzle a banned breed in public) can invite fines or seizure, and if that dog causes injury, the breach further undermines any potential defences.
Policy Considerations
Critics of breed-specific legislation question its effectiveness, pointing out that many dog bites involve mixed or non-banned breeds. Proponents respond that such laws reduce the number of severe attacks involving powerful breeds historically linked to harmful incidents. Regardless of the debate, owners must understand that standard DOLA rules apply across the board, while pit bull owners face additional legal hurdles. In practical terms, all owners—whether their dog is banned or not—must remain vigilant about controlling their pets to avoid both statutory penalties and potential civil suits.
If you or a loved one has been injured by a dog (or if your dog is facing allegations of a bite or attack), call on Grigoras Law. We proudly represent individuals, families, and organizations across Ontario in all types of dog bite and attack disputes. Our firm is dedicated to offering:
Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.
Based on the information provided, it seems like there could be potential for a claim under the Occupier’s Liability Act in Ontario. (Note that s. 3(1) of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (“DOLA”) doesn’t apply to a property owner who is not the owner of the dog as the term “owner” is defined under DOLA.) The Occupier’s Liability Act suggests that the occupier of premises, in this case the person who threw the party, owes a duty of care to ensure the safety of all persons on their premises. However, a few factors would come into play when determining if the host of the party could indeed be sued for a dog bite inflicted by another guest’s dog.
The key elements for establishing liability under the Occupier’s Liability Act are:
The existence of a duty of care: According to the Occupier’s Liability Act, there is an expectation for the host of the party to take reasonable care to ensure that people and their property are safe while on their premises. The host is therefore expected to foresee potential dangers and take appropriate measures to prevent harm.
Breach of that duty: The host would have to have acted (or failed to act) in a way that breached their duty of care. If it can be shown that the host knew the guest’s dog posed a risk and failed to take steps to ensure the safety of the guests, then there might be a case.
Causation: The breach of duty must have caused the harm. In this case, it would need to be proven that the host’s negligence directly led to the dog bite incident.
Damage or injury: You would need to show that you suffered damage or injury as a result of the dog bite.
It’s also important to note the Act’s provisions related to “risks willingly assumed.” If it is found that the person bitten knowingly accepted the risk of interacting with the dog, it might limit the liability of the occupier. The occupier, however, still owes a duty not to act with reckless disregard for the presence of the person or his or her property.
Boiling it down to the essentials, while you might be able to sue the owner of the property where the party was held, this largely depends on the specific circumstances of the case. The critical issue would be whether the host knew that the dog was likely to pose a risk and whether they took reasonable steps to prevent the incident. It’s recommended to consult with a legal professional to discuss the details of the situation and to get appropriate advice.
Yes, pit bulls have been banned in Ontario since 2005 due to a provision under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA), which is a provincial statute. This ban affects the breeding, sale, and ownership of pit bull dogs. The term “pit bull” is a somewhat nebulous term generally applied to muscular, square-headed, short-haired bull breed type dogs. Various other cities in Canada also implement similar bans, stemming from a belief that these dogs are inherently dangerous.
However, there is a strong ongoing movement to overturn the Ontario pit bull ban. This includes a private member’s bill introduced into parliament in 2019 with the aim of amending breed-specific legislation (BSL) to focus on the behaviour of the dog owner, rather than stigmatizing a specific breed. The bill, having passed its second reading, proposes creating breed-neutral, owner-specific legislation. If this bill becomes law, the focus will shift from the breed of the dog to the behaviour of the owner, thus creating safer and more humane communities.
Despite the ban, there have been attempts to challenge it on constitutional grounds. For instance, Cochrane v. Ontario was a case brought forward by an owner of a restricted pit bull named Chess. The plaintiff argued that the ban was grossly disproportionate to the actual risk posed by pit bulls to public safety, making it unconstitutionally overbroad. Cochrane also argued that the law failed to provide a clear definition of pit bulls, making it unconstitutionally vague.
Cochrane further challenged a provision of the DOLA that allowed the Crown to use a veterinarian certificate as proof a dog was a pit bull. Cochrane claimed this provision violated the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Charter. The Court of Appeal disagreed with these claims, stating that the term “a pit bull terrier” was sufficiently precise and that a certificate would only be considered “proof” if left unanswered by the accused.
Ultimately, the court upheld the pit bull ban, ruling that it did not violate Charter rights. Cochrane’s request for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied a year later.
It’s essential to note that despite these legal rulings, many argue that Breed Specific Legislation is an ineffective solution and should be replaced with owner-specific legislation, emphasizing responsible pet ownership instead of banning specific breeds.
The term “harbour” in the context of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) refers to the concept of providing refuge or shelter to a dog. However, it goes beyond mere provision of a physical location or space for the dog to stay. The idea of “harbouring” a dog encompasses a degree of control over the dog or, to put it differently, being in a position of an “owner.”
As per Section 2(1) of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, an “owner” of a dog includes a person who possesses or harbours the dog. Therefore, even if you are not the legal owner of the dog, but you harbour the dog, you may be held liable for damages if that dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal. But, what constitutes “harbouring” a dog isn’t as straightforward as it may seem.
To understand this in depth, we can look at the case of Purcell v. Taylor. In this case, the dog’s owner had arranged for his dog to stay at his brother’s home while he was working in the area. When the brother was away, the dog’s owner moved into the home and his dog bit a person on the opposite side of the street. The bitten person filed a case against the homeowners, arguing they should be held liable under the DOLA.
However, the judge in the case ruled that the homeowners did not “harbour” the dog, despite the dog’s presence in their home, because they did not exercise control over the dog. The dog was frequently at their home and they even provided a dog-run facility for it, but they were not in a position where they could direct or regulate the dog’s actions.
The judge’s decision indicates that in order to harbour a dog under the DOLA, a person must do more than merely provide a space for the dog to stay. They must also exercise control over the dog, essentially placing them in the position of the dog’s owner. In the absence of such control, a person cannot be deemed to “harbour” the dog and hence, cannot be held liable under the DOLA for any damage caused by the dog.
The term “harbour” in the context of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) refers to the concept of providing refuge or shelter to a dog. However, it goes beyond mere provision of a physical location or space for the dog to stay. The idea of “harbouring” a dog encompasses a degree of control over the dog or, to put it differently, being in a position of an “owner.”
As per Section 2(1) of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, an “owner” of a dog includes a person who possesses or harbours the dog. Therefore, even if you are not the legal owner of the dog, but you harbour the dog, you may be held liable for damages if that dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal. But, what constitutes “harbouring” a dog isn’t as straightforward as it may seem.
To understand this in depth, we can look at the case of Purcell v. Taylor. In this case, the dog’s owner had arranged for his dog to stay at his brother’s home while he was working in the area. When the brother was away, the dog’s owner moved into the home and his dog bit a person on the opposite side of the street. The bitten person filed a case against the homeowners, arguing they should be held liable under the DOLA.
However, the judge in the case ruled that the homeowners did not “harbour” the dog, despite the dog’s presence in their home, because they did not exercise control over the dog. The dog was frequently at their home and they even provided a dog-run facility for it, but they were not in a position where they could direct or regulate the dog’s actions.
The judge’s decision indicates that in order to harbour a dog under the DOLA, a person must do more than merely provide a space for the dog to stay. They must also exercise control over the dog, essentially placing them in the position of the dog’s owner. In the absence of such control, a person cannot be deemed to “harbour” the dog and hence, cannot be held liable under the DOLA for any damage caused by the dog.
Strict liability is a legal concept in which a person is held responsible for the damages or harm caused by their actions, irrespective of their intent or level of care. This standard deviates from other areas of the law where a party’s negligence or intent has to be proven to establish liability. In a strict liability context, the focus is on the action and the resulting damage, not the care taken or precautions implemented by the individual.
When it comes to dog bites and attacks in Ontario, strict liability applies. This means that if a dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal, the owner can be held legally responsible for that harm, regardless of whether the owner knew the dog could be dangerous or whether the owner took steps to prevent the dog from causing harm.
A case that exemplifies this is Kent (Litigation guardian of) v. Laverdiere, where a mother and child were severely mauled by the defendant’s nine mastiffs. Despite evidence showing the dogs’ general obedience and lack of prior aggressive behaviour, the judge applied the strict liability principle. It was irrelevant how well-behaved the dogs usually were or whether they had displayed aggression before. Because the dogs had caused harm, the owner was held strictly liable for the injuries suffered by the mother and child.
In essence, strict liability is a stringent legal standard designed to protect the public from inherently dangerous actions or possessions. It is applied in cases where the potential risk associated with an activity or possession, such as owning a dog, is deemed significant enough that the owner should bear complete legal responsibility for any harm caused.
The Dog Owners Liability Act, or DOLA, provides specific guidance on the matter of dog bite liability in cases of trespassing. According to Section 3(2) of the DOLA, if a person is trespassing on your property with the intent to commit a criminal act, or in the process of committing a criminal act, and they are bitten or attacked by your dog, you as the dog owner are generally not liable for the damages caused by your dog’s actions.
This is because the law considers the use of a dog for the protection of property and persons to be reasonable under such circumstances. However, there’s an important exception to this rule. If the court finds that keeping the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of protecting persons or property, then the owner can still be held liable.
This could include situations where the dog is particularly vicious or has been trained to attack, and the owner fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent such an attack, such as securing the dog when strangers are present.
It’s important to note that DOLA generally places strict liability on dog owners for damage caused by their dogs. This means that a dog owner could be held responsible for a dog bite even if they weren’t negligent and didn’t know that the dog would behave aggressively. The exception regarding trespassers intending to commit or committing a crime is quite specific and doesn’t absolve a dog owner from liability in other circumstances.
Lastly, the mere fact of trespassing doesn’t trigger this exception. The trespasser must be intending to commit or be in the act of committing a criminal act. If a person were merely trespassing without the intent to commit another crime and they were bitten, the owner could still be liable.
However, legal interpretations can vary, and each case can have unique circumstances. Therefore, it’s crucial to consult with a legal expert to understand the specifics of your situation. This answer should not be taken as legal advice but rather as a general explanation based on the provisions of DOLA. Legal situations can vary greatly and it’s always recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to your particular circumstances.
Yes, one recent case that could provide insight into damage awards in dog bite incidents is the Constantinou v. Stannard case out of Newmarket.
In this case, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained due to a dog bite. The incident occurred on December 1, 2016, when the defendant’s large dog bit the plaintiff on her hand and elbow. The plaintiff, a 60-year-old woman working part-time as a personal support worker, claimed that her ability to work was impaired due to the injuries, which included a wound to her hand and a torn rotator cuff. Additionally, the plaintiff’s enjoyment of leisure activities was negatively affected.
After a thorough examination of the presented evidence, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff had no functional limitations with her shoulder prior to the incident, and her rotator cuff injury was indeed caused by the dog bite. The injuries continued to impact the functionality of the plaintiff’s left shoulder and impeded her lifestyle, along with her family and social relationships.
In terms of damages, the court awarded the plaintiff:
The court made no award for loss of future income as it found no real and substantial possibility that the plaintiff would continue working as a personal support worker after her 65th birthday, considering her physical challenges apart from the injury on her left shoulder.
This case demonstrates the potentially severe financial implications of dog bite incidents. However, each case is unique and the specific circumstances of each situation can greatly influence the amount of damages awarded.
Under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA), the term “owner” is not only limited to the person who is legally registered as the dog’s owner. The definition also extends to any person who possesses or harbours the dog, and if the legal owner is a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor is also included.
The interpretation of who is an “owner” can be broad, and various court cases, such as Wilk v. Arbour, have demonstrated this expansiveness. The court in this case ruled that anyone who was in physical possession and control of a dog immediately before it bites or injures another person or animal is considered to be like an owner. Therefore, it’s possible for there to be more than one person considered to be the dog’s owner at any given time.
Moreover, it’s essential to highlight that under section 2(2) of DOLA, if there is more than one owner of a dog, they are deemed to be “jointly and severally” liable. The concept of joint and several liability is a legal principle that allows a party to be held fully responsible for damages even if they are not the sole party at fault. This means that if multiple individuals are considered owners under DOLA, each can be held responsible for the full amount of any damages caused by the dog, regardless of their degree of control or ownership. In a practical sense, a party that has suffered harm could seek full recovery from any one of the owners. It then becomes the responsibility of the owner who paid the damages to seek contributions from the other owners, if any. This principle ensures that a party that suffers harm can recover their losses even if some of the parties involved are unable to pay.
The term “possesses” in this context refers to someone who is in physical possession and control over a dog just before it bites or attacks another person or animal. This is in alignment with the definition provided in Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th edition (2014), and also in line with existing Canadian jurisprudence.
In practical terms, this means that individuals who are in a position where they are controlling or possessing a dog, such as kennel attendants, dog groomers, or dog walkers, might have difficulty in proving negligence on the part of the dog’s legal owner if they are bitten while at work. The reason is that they themselves have a measure of control over the dog they are handling or “possessing.”
A case that illustrates this principle is Medeiros v. Petopia Ltd., where a kennel attendant was bitten on the cheek by a regularly kenneled dog. The court dismissed the case against the dog’s legal owner, finding that there was no reasonable foreseeability of the damage caused, as the dog was not known to be aggressive, and the biting was unexpected. The dog also had no prior history of biting. In making this ruling, the court cited the precedent set by the Court of Appeal in the Wilk case.
Negligence in dog-related incidents typically arises when there is foreseeability of harm and the conduct is deemed unreasonable. According to Weiler J.’s decision in Wilk v. Arbour, the owner of an animal cannot be considered negligent if the animal acts in an unexpected manner and injures someone. The owner must reasonably foresee the danger that could result in damage given the particular characteristics of the animal and the circumstances of the situation.
In conclusion, although you may not be the registered owner of the dog, you could still be held liable for its actions if you are in possession or control of the dog when it bites or attacks. However, proving negligence of the dog’s legal owner requires demonstrating that they could have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm.
Grigoras Law provides smart, strategic counsel in civil litigation, business law, and appeals across Ontario.
Smart, Strategic Counsel.
GRIGORAS LAW - Civil Litigation and Business Lawyers Toronto © 2025 All Right Reserved
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
