Dog Bites and Attacks

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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.