In Nigro v. Luciano, 2026 ONCA 283 (“Nigro”), the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff dog-walker’s appeal of a decision dismissing her personal injury action for injuries sustained in a dog attack. The appeal and underlying summary judgement motion decision turned on the definition of “owner” under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16; “DOLA”).
The plaintiff, Amanda Nigro, was an employee of a dog-walking company. She was hired by the defendants, Michael Luciano and Amanda Luciano, to walk the Lucianos’ dog, “Forrest Gump” (“Forest”). For about 4 months, the plaintiff walked Forrest a few times per week. One day, the plaintiff attempted to apply booties to Forrest’s feet. Forrest disagreed. The dog attacked and injured the plaintiff.
The plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the Lucianos under DOLA, alleging that, as “owners” of Forrest and of the premises where the attack occurred, the Lucianos were strictly liable for damages. The Lucianos defended the action and brought a summary judgement motion for an order dismissing the action. The Lucianos argued that: (1) at the time of the attack, the plaintiff herself was an “owner” of Forrest as defined by DOLA; and, (2) under that legislation, all owners are jointly and severally liable. The motion judge agreed—so did the ONCA. The motion judge had found that, at the time of the subject attack, the plaintiff dog-walker was an owner within the definition of DOLA. That meant the plaintiff was jointly and severally liable for the attack. Therefore, she did not have a cause of action against the defendants who had ownership of the dog in the conventional sense.
DOLA is a provincial law establishing that dog owners are strictly liable for injuries or damages caused by their dogs to people or other domestic animals. In Nigro, the ONCA reviewed the DOLA definition of “owner”: […] 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. The ONCA also noted that DOLA provides that: the owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person (or domestic animal); where there is more than one owner of a dog, they are jointly and severally liable; liability of the owner doesn’t depend on knowledge of the propensity of the dog or negligence on the part of the owner; where damage is caused by being bitten or attacked by a dog on the owner’s premises, the owner’s liability is determined by DOLA, not the Occupier’s Liability Act (“OLA”).
The motion judge and the ONCA in Nigro applied the principles found in an earlier ONCA case: Wilk v. Arbour, 2017 ONCA 21, 135 O.R. (3d) 708 (“Wilk”). The ONCA confirmed that the word “possesses” in the DOLA definition of ‘owner” includes a person who is in physical possession and control over a dog just before it bites or attacks another person or animal. The ONCA explained that DOLA seeks to promote responsibility and accountability in those who are best able to prevent dog bites and attacks, wherever they occur. The ONCA rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she was merely passively carrying out the instructions of the Lucianos at the time of the attack, explaining that it is common for dog owners to give instructions to those hired to care for their dogs. The Court held that the person in possession of the dog is best placed to assess whether, when and how such instructions are to be carried out. The Court confirmed that DOLA does not restrict liability to those who have the highest level of authority over the dog. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the possessor be the only owner, or that the possessor be acting exclusively on her own volition. The ONCA in Nigro noted that the question of whether a person is an “owner” under DOLA is fact and context specific, and a rigid definition should be avoided due to the broad range of circumstances that could arise.
Kris Dixon is a litigator at Soloway Wright LLP with a focus on Construction Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law and Professional Liability.
DISCLAIMER: This article is for general information purposes only and is not (and should not be construed as) legal advice. The information contained herein summarizes only certain aspects of the subject matter and is not a comprehensive review of applicable law. All the foregoing is subject to legal and accounting advice based on the circumstances of each potential client.
