Federal Court Denies Application Under Privacy Act for Prematurity

In Ontario, Canada, a dog owner was held liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack on a person or domestic animal under the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA), with no requirement to show the owner knew the dog was dangerous or was careless.

This strict civil liability regime has significant implications for practitioners and businesses in Ontario. The low bar for plaintiffs means that even if the dog owner made precautions to prevent an attack, liability still applies. This can lead to increased insurance costs and potential financial burdens on dog owners. Furthermore, the broad definition of 'owner' under the DOLA includes anyone who possesses or harbours the dog, which can extend liability beyond just the registered owner.

The relevant statutes and regulations involved in this case include the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) of Ontario, which sets out the strict civil liability regime for dog bites. The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Wilk v. Arbour (2017 ONCA 21) also played a crucial role in interpreting the definition of 'owner' under the DOLA.

The key parties involved in this case include the dog owner, the plaintiff who was bitten by the dog, and the court that heard the matter. Practitioners should be aware of the potential for increased liability and take steps to advise their clients accordingly. This may involve reviewing insurance policies and taking precautions to prevent dog attacks.

Practitioner takeaway: Attorneys in Ontario should be aware of the strict civil liability regime under the DOLA and advise their clients on the potential risks and liabilities associated with owning a dog.