Ontario’s highest court has issued a ruling impacting dog walkers and pet sitters throughout the province. The court determined that Amanda Nigro, a part-time dog walker, cannot sue her clients following a dog bite incident that occurred while she was working.

Understanding the Court’s Decision

The case centers on the interpretation of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA). The court found that ‘owner’ isn’t limited to the registered keeper of a dog, but extends to anyone possessing and controlling the animal at the time of an incident.

The Incident

In March 2022, Nigro was bitten by a boxer named Forrest Gump while attempting to put booties on the dog at the home of Michael and Amanda Luciano, her clients. The dog had no prior history of aggression, but the bite resulted in significant injuries to Nigro’s arms, abdomen, and thigh.

Lawsuit Dismissed

Nigro filed a $1 million lawsuit against the Lucianos, but both lower courts and the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with the dog owners. The court emphasized that Nigro was “unquestionably the person in a position to control the behaviour of the dogs at the critical time,” effectively making her the ‘owner’ under DOLA for liability purposes.

Precedent and Legal Warnings

This ruling follows a similar case involving a woman bitten by her boyfriend’s Great Dane during a walk, reinforcing the broad definition of ‘owner’ under the Act. Shane Katz, Nigro’s lawyer, noted the decision expands the definition of ‘owner’ and potentially increases liability for pet care providers.

Katz stressed the importance of understanding the risks associated with caring for someone else’s dog, as caregivers could be legally considered the owner and forfeit their right to sue if injured. The court underscored that DOLA aims to hold accountable those best positioned to prevent dog bites, regardless of formal ownership.

Implications for Pet Care Professionals

The ruling clarifies that being in someone else’s home does not exempt a caregiver from the responsibilities and potential liabilities associated with dog ownership under the Act. This case highlights the importance of understanding the legal ramifications of pet care and the broad scope of responsibility assigned by Ontario’s DOLA.