Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog
Goldfinger Injury Lawyers handles a lot of dog bite, and dog attack cases. Brian Goldfinger’s first case that drew media attention was a dog bite case whereby a woman along with her therapy dog were viciously attacked by three pit bulls in Toronto. The case drew media attention because of the severity of the injuries to the victim, the severity of the injuries to the therapy dog, which eventually died; along with the fact that the dogs which did the attacking were pit bulls, or pit bull mixed breeds.
Liability in dog attack cases is at times, cut and dry.
Did the dog attack someone? Yes or No?
If the answer is yes, then there is a reverse onus which attaches to the dog owner. Regardless of whether or not the dog owner knew of the attack, or knew of the dog’s propensity to attack, or to be aggressive, the dog owner will be on the hook for the actions of his/her dog. At law, we call this concept “strict liability”. If the dog was on a leash, yet still attacked, the Defendant will still be at fault for the actions/aggressive of his/her dog. If the dog was not on a leash, well, then the actions of the dog, and the negligence of the dog owner are plain as day. Certainly, the parties will want to know if the Plaintiff provoked the attack, and this will be a factor in assessing liability, or any form of contribution.
The concept of owning a dog, or being defined as an owner is very important under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act. There are mandatory requirements for dog owners:
Owner to prevent dog from attacking
5.1 The owner of a dog shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent it from,
(a) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal; or
(b) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (15).
If you are identified as the “owner“, then you are responsible for the dog’s actions.
But, this idea of dog ownership is not so straight forward.
Certain facts/evidence, are indicators of dog ownership, possession or harbouring a dog.
- Where does the dog sleep at night?
- Where does the dog spend most of his/her time?
- Who pays for the dog’s food, vet bills, insurance, grooming, pet toys, boarding?
- Who cares for the dog?
- Under whose name is the dog registered with?
- Who was holding the leash at the time of the attack?
- What happens when there are more than 1 owner? That’s an easy one as it is addressed in the DOLA at section 2(2) which states:
Where more than one owner
(2) Where there is more than one owner of a dog, they are jointly and severally liable under this section.
The meaning being identified as the dog owner under the DOLA must be assessed in the context of the specific circumstances of any given case. Given the variety of circumstances that may arise, a rigid definition is to be avoided.
Identifying the owner of the dog is important for another reason. That’s because the dog ownership will trigger home or rental insurance coverage.
A Plaintiff can sue any dog owner they want. But, suing a dog owner who is not insured, or whose insurance coverage has not been triggered because there is a dispute as to dog ownership is a hard task when it comes to collecting on a Judgment. The first rule of personal injury law is to sue the party with the ability to pay out on a Judgment. Suing parties without assets, or without the ability to pay on a judgment will not result in any compensation being paid out to a Plaintiff.
If the insurer identifies that the defendant was a dog owner, then his/her home ownership, or rental insurance will indemnify them for damages in the lawsuit. But, if there are coverage issues because the question of dog ownership is up in the air, then insurance coverage might not get activated and the Plaintiff ends up chasing a Defendant who cannot pay on a Judgment.
Recently, I read the decision of Nigro v. Luciano, 2025 ONSC 1362. In this case, a dog walker/dog cuddler went to the Defendant’s home to care of the Defendant’s dogs. The Defendant’s were not at home, but gave access to the Plaintiff to enter the Defendant’s home. The Defendant dogs, while at their home, bit the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was in the course of her employment at the time of the dog bite. That would potentially open up the real of a WSIB claim, but that’s a completely different legal angle, which may, or may not, have been available to the Plaintiff. I can understand why the Plaintiff did not opt to pursue a WSIB claim given that the potential compensation in a personal injury lawsuit is more lucrative than compared to receiving WSIB benefits.
But, there is always a risk in a lawsuit. As opposed to WSIB benefits, where there is much less of a risk because liability does not have to be established. So long as there was a workplace injury, then WSIB benefits will be awarded. In any event, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was unsuccessful, because she was deemed to be an “owner” of the dog at the time of the dog attack. The definition of “owner“, also includes “harbourer” of the dog. Did the person have control of the dog at the time of the attack. In this instance, the Court found that the Plaintiff had control of the dog. This case does not make sense to me given that it appears to place little weight on the indicators of ownership; and instead; focuses on the fact that at the time of the attack, the Plaintiff had the keys to the house and had permission from the Defendants to be at the house alone to look after and help the dogs. As a result of the finding of “owner“, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants could not succeed.
It’s for these reasons that determining who the owner of the dog is very important; and is more complicated that you might think at first instance.
