Dog Bites & Attacks

Understanding Dog Bites & Attacks Law in Ontario

What is Dog Liability Law?

Dog bite and attack law in Ontario addresses legal claims for damages or compensation arising from injury or harm caused by a dog's bite or attack on a person or another domestic animal. These claims address both physical and psychological harm, with a particular focus on the responsibilities and liability of dog owners. While dogs are often loving family companions, the law recognizes that all dogs—regardless of breed, size, or temperament—have the potential to bite or attack under certain circumstances.

In Ontario, dog liability law is primarily governed by the Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16 ("DOLA"), which establishes strict liability for dog owners. This means that dog owners can be held legally responsible for harm caused by their dogs, with only limited defences available. The Act reflects a policy decision that victims of dog attacks should not bear the burden of proving fault—instead, owners bear the responsibility for their animals' conduct.

Beyond the provincial statute, dog bite claims can also arise under common law principles of negligence, the doctrine of scienter (Latin for "knowingly"), and occupier's liability legislation. Municipal bylaws add another layer of regulation, imposing controls on dog behaviour, licensing requirements, and consequences for dogs deemed "dangerous" or "aggressive."

Historical Context and Purpose

At common law, domestic dogs were generally presumed to be harmless animals, unlike wild animals which were considered inherently dangerous. This distinction meant that dog owners were not automatically liable for injuries caused by their dogs unless they had knowledge of the dog's specific dangerous propensities—the "one free bite" rule. However, this approach left many victims without recourse, particularly when a dog attacked without warning or prior incident.

The enactment of the Dog Owners' Liability Act in 1990 fundamentally changed this landscape by imposing strict liability on dog owners throughout Ontario. The legislature recognized that dog attacks can cause serious physical injuries, psychological trauma, and substantial economic losses. By removing the requirement to prove prior knowledge of dangerous propensities, DOLA ensures that victims can seek compensation without the evidentiary burden of establishing the owner's knowledge or fault.

The law serves multiple purposes: compensating victims, encouraging responsible dog ownership, and promoting public safety. The strict liability regime incentivizes owners to properly train, socialize, and control their dogs, while providing a clear legal framework for resolving disputes when attacks occur.

Scope of Liability: Who Can Be Held Responsible?

Under DOLA, liability extends beyond the registered owner of a dog. The Act defines "owner" broadly to include anyone who possesses, harbours, or has custody or control of a dog. This means that dog walkers, pet sitters, family members temporarily caring for a dog, or anyone exercising control over the animal at the time of an incident may potentially be held liable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed this broad interpretation. In Wilk v. Arbour, 2017 ONCA 21, the court held that a person in physical possession and control of a dog immediately before it bites is considered an "owner" for purposes of the Act. This prevents owners from avoiding liability by delegating care to others without transferring legal responsibility for the dog's conduct.

Landlords and property owners may also face liability in certain circumstances. While merely owning property where a dog resides does not automatically create liability, a landlord who assumes responsibility for a tenant's dog—such as by agreeing to walk or care for it—may be deemed an owner under DOLA. Similarly, under Occupiers' Liability Act principles, property occupiers owe a duty of care to ensure visitors are reasonably safe from hazards on the premises, including dangerous dogs.

The Dog Owners' Liability Act

Strict Liability Standard

The cornerstone of DOLA is its strict liability provision in section 2(1): "The owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal." This creates liability regardless of whether the owner knew the dog had dangerous propensities or took precautions to prevent an attack. Fault is not an element the plaintiff must prove—the mere fact that the dog bit or attacked is sufficient to establish liability.

This strict liability approach marks a significant departure from common law principles. Unlike negligence claims where plaintiffs must prove the defendant breached a duty of care, or scienter claims where knowledge of dangerous propensities must be established, DOLA imposes liability based solely on the occurrence of a bite or attack and the defendant's status as an owner.

The policy rationale is clear: dog ownership is a voluntary activity that creates inherent risks to others. By imposing strict liability, the law allocates the risk of harm to those who choose to own dogs and benefit from their companionship, rather than to innocent victims who suffer injuries through no fault of their own.

Limited Defences Under DOLA

While DOLA establishes strict liability, the Act does provide limited circumstances where liability may be reduced or eliminated:

Trespasser Exception

Under section 2(2), an owner is not liable if the person bitten or attacked was trespassing on the owner's property at the time of the incident and was committing, or about to commit, a criminal offence on the property. This exception reflects the principle that individuals engaged in criminal activity should not benefit from legal protections available to lawful entrants.

However, courts interpret this defence narrowly. The trespasser must not only be unlawfully on the property but also be committing or intending to commit a criminal offence. Mere civil trespass without criminal conduct does not trigger the defence. Additionally, the defence does not apply to attacks occurring in public places or on property other than that owned or occupied by the dog owner.

Contributory Negligence

Section 2(3) of DOLA preserves the defence of contributory negligence under the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1. This allows courts to apportion liability where the victim's own conduct contributed to the incident. For example, if a person provoked a dog, ignored warning signs, or deliberately placed themselves in harm's way despite obvious danger, a court may reduce damages to reflect their contributory fault.

The application of contributory negligence requires careful factual analysis. Courts consider the plaintiff's age, knowledge, and conduct leading up to the attack. Children, who may not appreciate the danger of approaching or startling a dog, are generally held to a lower standard than adults. However, even child plaintiffs may bear some responsibility if their actions materially contributed to the incident.

Provocation

While not explicitly codified as a defence in DOLA, courts consider provocation as part of the contextual analysis under contributory negligence principles. Provocation may include teasing, tormenting, or otherwise antagonizing a dog to the point where a bite or attack becomes a foreseeable response. Evidence of provocation can significantly reduce or eliminate damages, depending on the severity of the provocation relative to the dog's response.

Damages Available Under DOLA

Successful plaintiffs under DOLA may recover both pecuniary (economic) and non-pecuniary (non-economic) damages:

Pecuniary Damages

Economic losses compensable under DOLA include:

• Medical expenses: Past and future costs of emergency treatment, surgery, medications, rehabilitation, and ongoing therapy
• Lost income: Wages lost during recovery and reduced earning capacity if permanent disability results
• Out-of-pocket expenses: Transportation to medical appointments, assistive devices, home modifications
• Cost of future care: Long-term medical treatment, psychological counseling, or cosmetic procedures for scarring

Non-Pecuniary Damages

Non-economic losses address the human impact of the injury:

• Pain and suffering: Physical pain, discomfort, and limitations on daily activities
• Loss of enjoyment of life: Inability to participate in recreational, social, or family activities
• Psychological trauma: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, phobias related to dogs, depression
• Scarring and disfigurement: Permanent visible marks that affect appearance and self-esteem

In serious cases involving children, courts award substantial damages recognizing the long-term physical and psychological consequences of dog attacks. Facial injuries, in particular, often justify higher awards given their visibility and impact on social interactions throughout the victim's life.

Court Orders for Dangerous Dogs

Beyond monetary damages, DOLA empowers courts to make orders concerning dogs found to have bitten or attacked. Section 4(3) authorizes judges to:

• Order the dog to be destroyed
• Order the dog's owner to take specified measures to ensure public safety
• Order the dog removed from the jurisdiction
• Impose conditions on the dog's ownership and control

Section 4(6) sets out factors courts must consider when deciding whether to order destruction or impose conditions:

1. The dog's past and present temperament and behaviour
2. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack
3. Unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog's action
4. The improbability that a similar attack will be repeated
5. The dog's physical potential for inflicting harm
6. Precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future
7. Any other circumstances the court considers relevant

These provisions reflect a balanced approach that prioritizes public safety while recognizing that not every dog that bites poses an ongoing danger. Courts conduct contextual analyses, examining the specific circumstances of the attack, the dog's history, and the owner's demonstrated commitment to responsible ownership. Where appropriate, judges fashion conditional orders—such as requiring muzzling, secure confinement, liability insurance, or completion of training programs—as alternatives to destruction.

Common Law Liability Beyond DOLA

The Doctrine of Scienter

While DOLA imposes strict liability, plaintiffs may also pursue claims under the common law doctrine of scienter. Scienter (Latin for "knowingly") is a longstanding principle holding dog owners liable when they have knowledge of their dog's dangerous propensities and the dog causes harm consistent with those propensities.

The modern test for scienter was established by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Evans v. Berry, 2024 BCCA 103. A plaintiff must prove three elements on a balance of probabilities:

1. The defendant was the owner of the dog
2. The dog had manifested a propensity to cause the type of harm occasioned
3. The owner knew of that propensity

Propensity to Cause Harm

Critically, the plaintiff need not prove the dog previously caused identical harm. It suffices to show the dog displayed a trait, inclination, or propensity to behave in a manner that could foreseeably lead to the type of injury suffered. For example, evidence that a dog previously growled, lunged, snapped, or exhibited aggressive behaviour toward strangers may establish propensity, even if no prior bite occurred.

Courts reject the notion that "every dog gets one free bite." As the Court in Evans v. Berry clarified, while this adage may be a "reasonably accurate statement" of historical law, it does not constitute a legal principle. The three-part test governs the analysis—if a dog's past conduct demonstrates a dangerous propensity and the owner had knowledge, liability may attach even on the first bite.

Knowledge of Propensity

Knowledge may be actual or constructive. Actual knowledge exists where the owner personally observed dangerous behaviour. Constructive knowledge arises where the owner ought reasonably to have known of the propensity based on available information, such as warnings from veterinarians, trainers, or prior complaints from neighbours or visitors.

The timing of knowledge matters. The owner must have been aware of the propensity before the incident in question. Post-incident discoveries of past behaviour do not establish liability retroactively, though they may be relevant to assessing credibility or establishing a pattern for future incidents.

Negligence Claims

Dog owners may also be held liable under ordinary negligence principles when they fail to exercise reasonable care in controlling or managing their dogs. Unlike DOLA's strict liability or scienter's knowledge requirement, negligence focuses on whether the owner's conduct fell below the standard expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.

To succeed in negligence, a plaintiff must establish:

1. The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
2. The defendant breached the standard of care
3. The plaintiff sustained damage
4. The damage was caused, in fact and in law, by the defendant's breach

This framework, articulated in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, applies to dog bite cases just as it does to other negligence claims.

Duty and Standard of Care

Dog owners owe a general duty to prevent their dogs from causing foreseeable harm to others. The standard of care requires taking reasonable precautions appropriate to the circumstances, including the dog's known temperament, the environment, and the presence of vulnerable persons such as children.

Reasonable precautions may include:

• Proper leashing and physical control in public spaces
• Secure fencing and confinement when at home
• Warning signs alerting visitors to the dog's presence
• Muzzling dogs known to be reactive or aggressive
• Adequate training and socialization
• Supervision when the dog interacts with children or unfamiliar persons

What constitutes "reasonable" depends on context. A dog with a history of aggression requires stricter controls than a well-socialized, friendly dog. Similarly, owners must exercise greater caution in environments where children or vulnerable persons are present.

Causation and Foreseeability

Negligence requires proof that the owner's breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. Courts apply both factual causation ("but for" the breach, would the injury have occurred?) and legal causation (was the injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach?).

If an owner allows a dog to escape through a broken fence that has been in disrepair for weeks, and the dog subsequently bites a neighbour, factual causation is clear—but for the failure to repair the fence, the escape and bite would not have occurred. Legal causation is also satisfied because a dog escaping and potentially injuring someone is a foreseeable risk of an insecure enclosure.

Occupiers' Liability

Property occupiers in Ontario owe visitors a statutory duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. Section 3(1) requires occupiers to ensure that persons entering the premises are "reasonably safe" while on the property. This duty extends to dangers posed by animals kept on the premises.

An occupier may be found liable where:

• A dog on the property attacks a visitor
• The occupier knew or ought to have known the dog posed a risk
• The occupier failed to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from that risk

Reasonable steps might include keeping the dog confined, posting warning signs, restraining the dog when visitors arrive, or informing visitors of the dog's presence and behaviour. Courts assess whether the occupier's response was proportionate to the known risk.

Importantly, occupier's liability can apply even where the occupier is not the dog's owner. A landlord who permits a tenant to keep a known aggressive dog on rental property may owe a duty to other tenants and visitors if the landlord exercises sufficient control over the premises to address the hazard.

Defences Under Occupiers' Liability

The Occupiers' Liability Act provides defences for willingly assumed risks and trespassers. Section 3(3) states that occupiers owe no duty regarding risks willingly assumed by entrants, except to refrain from creating danger with intent to harm or acting with reckless disregard. Section 4(3.1) further limits liability for trespassers engaged in criminal activity, mirroring the DOLA exception.

These defences rarely succeed in dog attack cases involving lawful visitors. However, if a visitor knowingly approaches and provokes a dog despite warnings, or if a trespasser unlawfully enters property and is bitten, the occupier's liability may be reduced or eliminated.

Municipal Bylaws and Dangerous Dog Designations

Municipal Authority and Bylaw Structure

Municipalities across Ontario have broad authority under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, to enact bylaws regulating animals within their boundaries. These bylaws typically address licensing, leashing requirements, waste removal, noise complaints, off-leash park designations, and the classification of dogs as "dangerous" or "aggressive."

Animal control officers enforce these bylaws and investigate complaints. Upon receiving a report of aggressive behaviour or an attack, an officer may designate a dog as dangerous, impose restrictions on the owner, seize the dog pending investigation, or apply to a court for a destruction order.

Definitions: "Dangerous" vs. "Aggressive"

Municipal definitions vary, but common elements include:

Dangerous Dog

A dog that has:

• Killed or seriously injured a person or domestic animal
• Demonstrated behaviour indicating a likelihood of causing serious injury or death
• Been designated as dangerous following assessment by animal control

Aggressive Dog

A dog that has:

• Bitten a person or animal without causing serious injury
• Displayed hostile or threatening behaviour such as growling, snarling, or lunging
• Pursued persons or animals in a menacing manner

These definitions are inherently subjective. What constitutes "hostile" or "menacing" behaviour depends on interpretation and context. A dog that barks excitedly may be perceived as aggressive by one observer and playful by another. This subjectivity creates challenges for dog owners facing designations and underscores the importance of thorough investigation and opportunity for review.

Consequences of Dangerous or Aggressive Designation

Once designated, owners face significant restrictions and requirements, which may include:

• Special licensing: Higher fees and annual renewal conditions
• Confinement requirements: Secure indoor housing or outdoor enclosures meeting specified standards
• Leashing and muzzling: Mandatory use of short leashes and muzzles in public spaces
• Signage: Posting warning signs on the property visible to the public
• Liability insurance: Proof of coverage for potential future incidents
• Prohibition from off-leash areas: Barring designated dogs from dog parks
• Reporting requirements: Immediate notification of escapes or further incidents

Failure to comply with these conditions can result in fines, seizure of the dog, and court applications for destruction orders. The consequences are not merely financial or administrative—non-compliance may lead to the permanent removal and euthanization of the dog.

Challenging Dangerous Dog Designations

Dog owners who believe a designation is unjustified or disproportionate may seek review through administrative appeal processes (where available) or judicial review. The availability and structure of appeals vary by municipality.

Some municipalities provide internal review mechanisms allowing owners to present evidence—such as veterinary behavioural assessments, witness statements, or proof of training completion—demonstrating that the dog does not pose an unacceptable risk. Independent veterinary evaluations can be particularly persuasive, as veterinarians bring medical expertise to assess whether health issues, pain, or fear contributed to the behaviour in question.

Where internal appeals are unavailable or unsuccessful, owners may challenge designations through judicial review in the Superior Court of Justice. Judicial review examines whether the decision-maker acted within their authority, followed fair procedures, and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. Courts are generally deferential to municipal officers' expertise but will intervene where decisions are arbitrary, procedurally unfair, or unsupported by evidence.

The Need for Veterinary Involvement

A critical gap in many municipal systems is the lack of veterinary involvement in dangerous dog assessments. Animal control officers, while trained in enforcement and public safety, typically lack the medical and behavioural expertise to diagnose underlying causes of aggression. Pain, illness, hormonal imbalances, neurological conditions, and environmental stressors can all contribute to behaviour that appears aggressive but is treatable or manageable with proper care.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association has called for mandatory veterinary assessments before dogs are designated dangerous or subjected to destruction orders. Veterinarians can identify medical issues, recommend behaviour modification strategies, and provide objective, evidence-based opinions on whether a dog poses an ongoing public safety risk. Incorporating veterinary expertise into the decision-making process improves outcomes for dogs, owners, and communities.

Breed-Specific Legislation and the "Pit Bull" Ban

Ontario's Pit Bull Ban

In 2005, Ontario amended DOLA to prohibit the breeding, ownership, and importation of "pit bulls." The amendments defined pit bulls to include:

• Pit Bull Terriers
• Staffordshire Bull Terriers
• American Staffordshire Terriers
• American Pit Bull Terriers
• Any dog substantially similar in appearance or physical characteristics to these breeds

Pit bulls owned before the ban were "grandfathered," meaning they could remain with their owners subject to strict conditions: muzzling in public, leashing with a maximum one-metre lead, sterilization, and special licensing. New ownership or breeding of pit bulls became illegal, with limited exceptions for guide dogs and law enforcement animals.

Problems with Breed-Specific Legislation

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) has been widely criticized by veterinary associations, animal behaviour experts, legal scholars, and civil liberties advocates. The fundamental problems include:

Lack of Scientific Basis

No credible evidence supports the claim that certain breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. Dog behaviour is influenced by genetics, early socialization, training, environmental factors, and individual temperament. Studies consistently show that breed is not a reliable predictor of aggression. The American Veterinary Medical Association, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and numerous other professional bodies oppose BSL as scientifically unfounded.

Identification Challenges

Accurately identifying a dog's breed—especially mixed-breed dogs—is notoriously difficult. Visual identification by animal control officers, shelter staff, or even veterinarians is unreliable. Research shows that even experts frequently misidentify dogs as pit bulls when they belong to entirely different breeds. DNA testing provides more accurate breed composition data but is expensive, not universally available, and still subject to interpretation when dogs have mixed ancestry.

This identification problem leads to arbitrary enforcement. Dogs that "look like" pit bulls may be seized, while genuinely aggressive dogs of other breeds avoid scrutiny. The result is a law that penalizes based on appearance rather than actual behaviour or risk.

Failure to Reduce Dog Bites

Empirical data from jurisdictions with BSL shows no significant reduction in dog bite incidents. After Ontario enacted its pit bull ban, Toronto's dog bite statistics remained essentially unchanged. Similarly, Winnipeg's long-standing pit bull ban has not led to measurably safer communities compared to cities without such legislation. When dangerous dogs are removed from a community, other breeds fill the void, and bite rates remain stable.

By contrast, jurisdictions that focus on responsible ownership, education, enforcement of leash laws, and accountability for all owners—regardless of breed—achieve better outcomes. Calgary, Alberta, is frequently cited as a model: its responsible pet ownership bylaws emphasize owner behaviour, licensing compliance, and education. Calgary has one of the lowest dog bite rates in North America and one of the highest pet return-to-owner rates, without resorting to breed bans.

Unintended Consequences

BSL stigmatizes certain breeds and their owners, leading to discrimination in housing, insurance, and public spaces. Landlords refuse to rent to pit bull owners (even grandfathered dogs), insurance companies deny coverage, and families face difficult choices about rehoming beloved pets or moving out of the province.

Shelters and rescues struggle to place pit bull-type dogs, leading to higher euthanasia rates for these animals. Well-behaved, family-friendly dogs are destroyed simply because they resemble a banned breed, while genuinely dangerous dogs of other breeds may be adopted without additional scrutiny.

Constitutional Challenge to Ontario's Ban

In Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA 718, leave to appeal refused 2009 SCC, a dog owner challenged Ontario's pit bull ban on constitutional grounds, arguing it violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (life, liberty, and security of the person) and section 11(d) (right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence).

The Court of Appeal upheld the legislation, finding:

• The definition of "pit bull," though broad, was sufficiently clear for enforcement purposes
• Section 7 was not engaged because the ban concerned property (dogs) rather than fundamental personal interests
• The evidentiary provision allowing veterinary certificates as proof of breed did not violate the presumption of innocence because defendants could rebut the evidence

The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal, leaving the Ontario ban intact. However, the decision did not address the underlying policy question of whether BSL is effective or sound public policy—only whether it was constitutionally permissible.

Alternatives to Breed-Specific Legislation

Evidence-based alternatives focus on owner accountability and behaviour-based assessments:

• Comprehensive licensing and identification: Ensuring all dogs are licensed, microchipped, and traceable to responsible owners
• Leash laws and off-leash area regulations: Clear rules about where dogs may be off-leash and owner supervision requirements
• Owner education programs: Mandatory training for new dog owners on socialization, body language, and responsible management
• Behaviour-based dangerous dog designations: Focusing on individual dogs' actual conduct rather than breed stereotypes
• Enhanced penalties for irresponsible ownership: Stronger fines and sanctions for owners whose dogs cause harm due to negligence
• Spay/neuter programs: Reducing aggression-related hormonal influences and overpopulation

These measures address the root causes of dog bites—poor training, inadequate supervision, irresponsible breeding, and lack of socialization—without unfairly targeting specific breeds or imposing blanket prohibitions.

Defences and Practical Considerations

Due Diligence Defence in Bylaw Prosecutions

Many municipal bylaw offences are strict liability offences, meaning the prosecution need only prove the prohibited act occurred—not that the defendant intended or was negligent. However, strict liability offences allow a due diligence defence: if the defendant can prove on a balance of probabilities that they took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence, they may be acquitted.

The leading authority is R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299, which established that due diligence can be shown by proving either:

1. The defendant took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event, or
2. The defendant reasonably but mistakenly believed in a set of facts which, if true, would render the act innocent

In the dog bite context, examples of due diligence might include:

• Maintaining secure, well-maintained fencing that was breached by vandalism or an unforeseeable event
• Exercising appropriate control and supervision, but the dog reacted unexpectedly to provocation
• Relying on professional advice from veterinarians or trainers regarding the dog's temperament

Courts assess due diligence objectively, asking whether a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have taken additional precautions. Owners with knowledge of prior incidents or aggressive behaviour are held to a higher standard than those with well-behaved dogs experiencing a first-time incident.

Provocation and Contributory Negligence

Evidence of provocation can significantly reduce or eliminate liability. Provocation includes conduct that would reasonably be expected to trigger a defensive or aggressive response from a dog, such as:

• Hitting, kicking, or physically abusing the dog
• Cornering or threatening the dog
• Attempting to take food, toys, or valued items from the dog
• Startling the dog while sleeping or eating
• Invading the dog's space when the dog has shown signs of fear or stress

Children, particularly young children, may not understand dog behaviour and may inadvertently provoke attacks. Courts recognize this and typically hold children to a lower standard of care. However, parents who fail to supervise young children around dogs known to be reactive may themselves be found contributorily negligent.

In assessing contributory negligence, courts apply the Negligence Act framework, apportioning fault between the plaintiff and defendant. If a plaintiff's conduct was 25% responsible for the incident and the dog owner's failure to control the dog was 75% responsible, damages will be reduced by 25%. In extreme cases where provocation is severe and the dog's response proportionate, liability may be reduced to zero.

Insurance Considerations

Homeowners and tenants insurance policies typically include liability coverage for dog bites occurring on the insured property or caused by the insured's dog elsewhere. However, policies often contain exclusions or limitations:

• Breed exclusions: Some insurers refuse coverage for pit bulls, Rottweilers, or other breeds deemed high-risk
• Prior incident exclusions: Coverage may be denied if the dog previously bit or was designated dangerous
• Intentional act exclusions: If the owner intentionally directed the dog to attack, coverage may not apply

Dog owners should review their insurance policies carefully and disclose the dog's breed and any history of aggression to their insurer. Failure to disclose material information may void coverage when a claim arises. Owners of dogs designated dangerous may need to obtain specialized liability insurance or increase coverage limits to meet municipal requirements.

Limitation Periods

Under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Schedule B, most personal injury claims, including dog bite claims, must be commenced within two years of the date the injury was sustained or discovered. The limitation period begins when the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known:

• That the injury occurred
• That the injury was caused by the defendant's act or omission
• That the injury warrants bringing a legal proceeding

Special rules apply to claims involving minors. While the two-year limitation period still applies, it does not begin to run until the minor reaches the age of majority (18 in Ontario). This means a child bitten at age 10 has until age 20 to commence a claim. However, parents or guardians may commence claims on behalf of minors at any time.

Plaintiffs should not delay in pursuing claims. Evidence deteriorates, witnesses' memories fade, and defendants may relocate or become judgment-proof. Early legal consultation ensures that limitation periods are respected and that evidence is preserved while fresh.

Settlement Considerations

Many dog bite claims resolve through settlement rather than trial. Settlement offers advantages: faster resolution, lower legal costs, certainty of outcome, and privacy. However, plaintiffs should carefully evaluate settlement offers to ensure they adequately compensate for all losses, including future medical needs and long-term psychological effects.

Key considerations in settlement negotiations include:

• Full extent of injuries: Ensuring all injuries, including psychological trauma, are diagnosed and assessed before settling
• Future care needs: Accounting for ongoing therapy, medication, or cosmetic procedures
• Scarring and disfigurement: Recognizing that permanent visible scars—especially on children—justify higher compensation
• Impact on quality of life: Evaluating how the attack affects daily activities, relationships, and emotional well-being
• Insurance coverage limits: Understanding the defendant's insurance policy limits and ability to pay

Plaintiffs should obtain independent legal advice before accepting settlements. Once a release is signed, the claim is extinguished, and no further compensation can be sought even if complications arise later.

Children and Dog Bites

The Vulnerability of Children

Children under age 10 comprise the largest group of dog bite victims. Their smaller size, limited understanding of dog behaviour, and inability to recognize warning signs place them at heightened risk. Dog bites to children are more likely to involve the face, head, and neck—areas that result in severe injuries, permanent scarring, and significant psychological trauma.

Most child dog bite incidents occur in familiar settings: the family home, a relative's or friend's house, or the neighbourhood. The dog is often known to the child—a family pet, a neighbour's dog, or a friend's animal. This familiarity can create a false sense of security, leading children to approach or interact with dogs in ways that adults would recognize as unsafe.

Educating Children About Dog Safety

Public health initiatives and school-based programs emphasize teaching children how to behave safely around dogs. Key messages include:

• Always ask permission before petting an unfamiliar dog, even if the dog appears friendly
• Approach slowly and calmly, allowing the dog to sniff your hand before petting
• Avoid direct eye contact, which dogs may perceive as threatening
• Never disturb a dog that is eating, sleeping, or caring for puppies
• Do not run or scream near dogs, as this may trigger a chase response
• Stand still like a tree if approached by an unfamiliar dog, keeping arms at your sides and avoiding eye contact
• Tell an adult immediately if a dog behaves aggressively or if you feel unsafe

Parents and caregivers also bear responsibility for supervising interactions between children and dogs, particularly when children are young or when unfamiliar dogs are present. Even well-behaved, family-friendly dogs can react unpredictably if startled, provoked, or in pain. Active supervision, clear safety rules, and prompt intervention when interactions become unsafe are essential to preventing bites.

Parental Supervision and Liability

While dog owners bear primary liability under DOLA, parents may face contributory negligence findings if they fail to adequately supervise their children around dogs. Courts consider factors such as:

• The child's age and maturity
• The parents' knowledge of the dog's temperament or history
• The adequacy of supervision given the circumstances
• Whether the parents took reasonable steps to educate the child about safe dog interactions

A parent who allows a toddler to approach an unfamiliar, leashed dog without supervision, or who permits a young child to roughhouse with a dog showing signs of stress, may be found partially at fault if the child is bitten. However, courts generally do not expect parents to anticipate every possible risk, and liability is apportioned based on the reasonableness of the parents' conduct under the circumstances.

Seeking Legal Assistance for Dog Bite Claims

When to Consult a Lawyer

Victims of dog bites should consult a lawyer promptly in several situations:

• Serious injuries: Bites requiring medical treatment, surgery, or ongoing care
• Facial injuries or scarring: Injuries that result in permanent disfigurement
• Children as victims: Claims involving minors often require court approval of settlements
• Disputed liability: When the dog owner denies responsibility or claims provocation
• Insurance issues: When the owner's insurance company denies coverage or offers inadequate compensation
• Municipal bylaw proceedings: When a dog is designated dangerous or facing a destruction order

Early legal consultation ensures that evidence is preserved, witnesses are identified, medical documentation is thorough, and the claim is properly valued. Lawyers experienced in dog bite litigation understand the interplay between DOLA, common law, insurance coverage, and municipal bylaws, and can navigate these complex legal frameworks to achieve the best possible outcome.

What a Lawyer Can Do

A lawyer representing a dog bite victim or defendant can:

• Investigate the incident: Gather witness statements, photographs, medical records, and veterinary assessments
• Assess liability: Determine the applicable legal framework (DOLA, negligence, scienter, occupier's liability) and the strength of the claim or defence
• Document damages: Ensure all injuries and losses are properly documented and quantified, including future care needs
• Negotiate with insurance: Advocate for fair compensation from insurance carriers, who often make low initial offers
• Challenge dangerous dog designations: Represent owners in administrative appeals or judicial review proceedings
• Litigate if necessary: Pursue claims through the court system when settlement is not achievable or fair

For dog owners facing municipal bylaw proceedings or civil claims, a lawyer can also:

• Present evidence of due diligence, provocation, or contributory negligence
• Arrange independent veterinary behavioural assessments to demonstrate the dog does not pose an ongoing risk
• Negotiate conditional release agreements as alternatives to destruction orders
• Advise on compliance with court-imposed conditions and insurance requirements

Evidence Preservation and Documentation

Strong documentation is critical in dog bite cases. Victims and dog owners alike should:

• Photograph injuries immediately and throughout the healing process to document severity and scarring
• Obtain medical records from emergency rooms, family doctors, specialists, and therapists
• Preserve clothing worn during the attack, which may show tears or blood evidence
• Identify witnesses and obtain contact information while memories are fresh
• Exchange information at the scene, including the dog owner's name, address, insurance information, and the dog's vaccination records
• Report the incident to municipal animal control to create an official record
• Keep a journal documenting pain, limitations, psychological effects, and how the injury affects daily life

For dog owners, additional steps include:

• Documenting the dog's training history, veterinary care, and behaviour assessments
• Preserving evidence of precautions taken (photos of fencing, leashes, signage)
• Obtaining statements from trainers, veterinarians, or witnesses who can attest to the dog's temperament
• Investigating whether provocation or contributory negligence may apply

Comprehensive documentation strengthens legal claims, supports settlement negotiations, and provides essential evidence if the matter proceeds to trial or municipal hearing.

Conclusion: Balancing Public Safety and Responsible Ownership

Principles of Responsible Dog Ownership

Preventing dog bites requires a shared commitment to responsible ownership, public education, and evidence-based policy. Responsible dog owners should:

• Provide proper training and socialization from an early age, exposing dogs to diverse people, animals, and environments in positive, controlled settings
• Maintain veterinary care, ensuring dogs receive regular checkups, vaccinations, and treatment for any health issues that may contribute to aggression
• Exercise appropriate control, using leashes, secure fencing, and supervision to prevent escapes and unwanted interactions
• Recognize warning signs of stress, fear, or aggression in their dogs and intervene before situations escalate
• Educate family members and visitors about safe interactions with the dog, particularly children who may not understand dog body language
• Comply with licensing and bylaw requirements, including leash laws, muzzling orders, and insurance requirements
• Seek professional help from veterinarians, trainers, or behaviourists if their dog displays concerning behaviour

Policy Recommendations for Safer Communities

Evidence-based policies that improve public safety without unfairly targeting specific breeds or dogs include:

• Universal licensing and microchipping: Ensuring all dogs are registered and traceable to responsible owners
• Owner education programs: Providing accessible training resources and requiring basic education for first-time dog owners
• Behaviour-based dangerous dog designations: Focusing on individual dogs' actual conduct rather than breed stereotypes, with veterinary involvement in assessments
• Transparent appeal processes: Allowing owners to challenge designations with independent evidence and ensuring procedural fairness
• Enforcement of leash laws and supervision requirements: Consistent application of rules across all breeds to prevent incidents before they occur
• Spay/neuter initiatives: Reducing hormonal contributions to aggression and addressing overpopulation
• Public education campaigns: Teaching children and adults how to interact safely with dogs and recognize warning signs

The Role of the Legal System

Ontario's legal framework for dog bites balances the need to compensate victims with fairness to dog owners. DOLA's strict liability standard ensures victims are not left without recourse while preserving limited defences that account for trespassing, provocation, and contributory negligence. Common law principles provide additional remedies where knowledge, fault, or property-based duties apply.

Municipal bylaws serve an important regulatory function, addressing local concerns and empowering animal control to intervene before serious harm occurs. However, these systems work best when they are transparent, evidence-based, and subject to meaningful oversight. Incorporating veterinary expertise, providing fair review processes, and focusing on behaviour rather than breed stereotypes all contribute to better outcomes.

Legal professionals play a vital role in navigating this complex landscape. Whether representing victims seeking compensation, owners challenging unfair designations, or municipalities defending bylaw enforcement, lawyers help ensure that the law operates fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the evidence.

Grigoras Law is committed to representing clients in all aspects of dog bite and attack litigation, from initial claims through settlement or trial, and including challenges to dangerous dog designations. We work with veterinary experts, investigators, and medical professionals to build strong cases rooted in evidence and advocacy. Whether you have been injured by a dog or are facing allegations related to your dog's conduct, we are here to provide experienced, compassionate, and effective legal representation.