The highest court in Ontario has determined that a dog walker who was bitten while on the job cannot claim damages from her clients because provincial law classifies her as the animal’s “owner” during that time.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling indicates that the dog walker had been employed part-time by two clients for several months leading up to March 2022 when she was bitten while attempting to put booties on a dog named Forrest, who previously showed no signs of aggression.
The injuries sustained by the dog walker included damage to her abdomen, left upper thigh, and both arms, prompting her to sue the clients for $1 million in damages.
In February 2025, an Ontario judge rejected her lawsuit, explaining that according to the province’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act, she was regarded as Forrest’s “owner” at the moment of the incident, which made her partly liable for any harm caused.
This judge clarified that under provincial law, an “owner” includes anyone who “possesses or harbours” a dog; it doesn’t require complete control over the animal.
The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, asserting that the dog walker was “unquestionably” in a position to manage how the dogs behaved during the incident.
The dog walker contended she wasn’t a true owner since she was merely “passively carrying out the wishes” of her clients who told her to put booties on Forrest before letting him outside, as stated in the ruling.
However, the Appeal Court judges dismissed this argument, stating it “had no legal significance.”
“The person in possession of the dog is best placed to assess whether, when and how such instructions are to be carried out,” said the Appeal Court’s decision.
Additionally, she argued that since the attack occurred in her clients’ home and they were both homeowners and owners of Forrest, they should be held responsible for her injuries.
Yet, the appeal panel explained that liability isn’t determined by where an incident happens.
“It would defeat this legislative objective if someone meeting the definition of owner could escape liability merely because they were in someone else’s home at the time of the incident,” read their decision.
The higher court also concluded that provincial law does not limit liability only to those with full authority over a dog.
“The legislature chose to impose liability on those persons who are best placed to control the dog and prevent damage to persons and other animals,” stated their ruling.
This report by The Canadian Press was first May 4, 2026.
The Canadian Press
Source link
Source link
