Dog owners in the County of Haliburton, as elsewhere in Ontario, are governed by the Dog Owners’ Liability Act when a dog attack occurs. The Act provides that a dog owner is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal. What the dog owner must understand is that this legislation mandates an absolute or strict liability regime for dog owners. When the dog attacks, the dog owner is liable. It does not matter that the owner was careful with the dog, or did not know it might hurt somebody, or made efforts to prevent it from causing injury. One Ontario judge has described the situation this way: “This statute recognizes that all dogs have the potential to become dangerous. An owner keeps it at his peril and has a duty to properly control his dog and to prevent it from harming others. Where the dog does cause harm, the owner is strictly liable regardless of fault because a duty has been breached.”
The definition of “owner” under the Act includes “a person who possesses or harbours the dog.” Certain conditions must be met for a person, who is not the licensed owner, to be deemed to harbour a dog. The intention of the person must be to take care of the dog. Taking care of a dog requires, among other things, sheltering it, feeding it, and exercising it. The person must also temporarily assume the responsibilities toward the dog which a dog owner customarily assumes, such as discipline. A person who simply allows the dog to be in the person’s home or on that person’s property, in the presence of its owner when the dog attacks someone, does not make that person a harbourer, or “owner,” of the dog within the meaning of the Act.
The only legal help a dog owner has under the Act is the extent of liability. The court may reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree to which the fault or negligence of the victim caused or contributed to the damages. Conduct, such as aggressive body language towards the dog or loud and abusive shouting that would incite the dog to retaliate are examples that may warrant a reduction in damages.
Many dog attacks occur with young children. The courts have held that the mere touching of a dog by means of a friendly hug or pat does not warrant a reduction in damages. Attacks to the face are common. In one dog bite case, the court stated: “Damages for scars and lacerations arising out of different kinds of injuries attract the higher end of the scale when the scars are to a plaintiff’s face, and remain visible and predominant, as opposed to scarring which is cosmetic only and hidden, either in the hairline or in other lines in the face.”