What does it mean to be an “owner” of a dog under Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act? This case provides a cautionary tale for those who care for animals professionally.
Mama always had a way of explaining things so I could understand them
In Nigro v. Luciano, the defendants (Amanda and Michael Luciano) hired a dog walking company named Syd’s Kids to look after their two dogs, Forest Gump Luciano and Benny Luciano. The plaintiff (Amanda Nigro) worked part-time for Syd’s Kids. In November 2021, Nigro was given a key to the Lucianos’ home. She would walk Forrest Gump approximately three times per week and provide puppy visits for Benny.
On March 24, 2022, while attempting to put booties on Forrest Gump before letting him outside, Forrest Gump attacked and bit Nigro, causing significant injuries to her abdomen, left upper thigh, and both arms.
As a result of her injuries, Nigro sued the Lucianos (only the Humans). The defendants brought a summary judge motion to dismiss the action. The motion involved a narrow issue:
The parties agree that the issue to be determined by this court on this motion is a narrow one, specifically, whether the Plaintiff is an “owner” pursuant to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16 (“DOLA”). If the Plaintiff is an owner as defined in the DOLA, then she has no cause of action, as all owners are jointly and severally liable under the legislation (s. 2(2)). If she is not an owner, then there is strict liability under this legislation. There is no pleading of negligence in this case, rather the entire focus of the claim is on the DOLA. Therefore, the question of ownership determines the liability in this case.
In other words, if Nigro was Forrest Gump’s “owner” under the DOLA, she would not be allowed to claim against his other “owner”s, namely, the defendants. The DOLA holds dog owners strictly liable for damages from a dog bite or attack. The term “owner” includes anyone who “possesses or harbours” a dog.
1 (1) In this Act,
“owner”, when used in relation to a dog, includes a person who possesses or harbours the dog and, where the owner is a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor; (“propriétaire”)
In other words, the term “owner” is broader than the common meaning of the word “owner”. The case focused on whether Nigro, as the dog walker, was an “owner” during the incident.
Owners and “Owners” goes together like peas and carrots
In determining that Nigro was an “owner” of Forrest Gump, the motion judge referred to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2017 decision in Wilk v. Arbour. In Wilk, the plaintiff sustained injuries while walking her boyfriend’s dog. The Court of Appeal concluded that possession under DOLA includes “physical possession and control over a dog just before it bites or attacks.”
Applying this reasoning, the motion judge found that
- Nigro was alone with Forrest Gump in the Lucianos’ home.
- She had physical control over Forrest Gump immediately before he attacked her.
- She was attempting to put booties on Forrest Gump to take him outside, exercising actual control.
Nigro asserted that her involvement with Forrest Gump was merely to follow the Lucianos’ instructions and that she did not have “dominion” over Forrest Gump. The motion judge rejected her argument:
The Plaintiff’s arguments suggest that dominion over Forrest is required to be established, and emphasizes the fact that, in this case, the Plaintiff, as a hired dog walker, was required to care for and control Forrest pursuant to the specific instructions provided by the Defendants, who according to the Plaintiff, are the true owners. The Plaintiff argues that her control over Forrest was limited to carrying out the instructions of the Defendants, the true owners, not making independent decisions about his health, behaviour, or overall care, which at all times, according to her, were decisions controlled by and directed by the Defendants. Dominion or independent control over the dog is exactly what the Court in Wilk held was not required for possession. It is irrelevant whether the Plaintiff was exercising control over Forrest with or without the Defendants’ direction or approval. All that is relevant is that the Plaintiff was in physical possession of Forrest directly before the incident.
In other words, the ruling in Wilk was clear that dominion or ultimate decision-making authority was not required to be an “owner” under the DOLA. The crucial element was actual possession and control at the time of the incident.
Accordingly, the motion judge granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Nigro met the definition of an “owner” under DOLA. As an owner, she had no cause of action against the Lucianos. Her action was dismissed.
Key takeaways for dog walkers and care professionals (and their insurers)
- The DOLA imposes strict liability on owners, but “owner” is defined broadly. Anyone in physical possession of a dog at the time of an attack may be treated as an owner and lose the right to sue.
- If a person is exercising control over a dog at the time of an incident, they could be deemed an “owner” under the DOLA, even if they are only temporarily responsible for the dog.
- Dog walkers and pet care professionals may wish to consider liability waivers or insurance coverage to mitigate risks associated with their work, especially if they are deemed to be “owner”s of the dogs they walk.
- While Wilk and Nigro establish a broad interpretation of ownership under DOLA, the court left open the possibility that different factual circumstances might lead to a different result.
Final Thoughts
Nigro highlights the expansive reach of the DOLA and serves as a warning to people who handle dogs, professionally or otherwise. While the Act is designed to protect the public, its broad definition of “owner” can not only strip victims of their right to sue but can also impose liability on dog walkers under the Act. For dog care professionals, this case highlights the importance of understanding their legal responsibilities and ensuring they have appropriate protections in place.
See Nigro v. Luciano, 2025 ONSC 1362 (CanLII)
That’s all I have to say about that.