Ontario Court of Appeal rules dog walker was ‘owner’ in dog bite liability case

Ontario’s highest court has ruled that a dog walker who was bitten while working cannot seek damages from her clients since provincial law defines her as the animal’s “owner” at that time.

The Court of Appeal decision says the dog walker had been working part-time for two clients for a few months by March 2022 when she was bitten while trying to put booties on a dog named Forrest, who had no previous record of aggressive behaviour.

The dog walker suffered injuries to her abdomen, left upper thigh and both arms, and she sued the clients for $1 million in damages.

In February 2025, an Ontario judge dismissed her claim, stating that under the province’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act, the dog walker was considered Forrest’s “owner” at the time of the incident, which meant she was jointly responsible for any injuries it caused.

That judge ruled that under provincial law, the “owner” of a dog includes a person who “possesses or harbours” it, and the law does not require the owner to have ultimate control over the animal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the ruling, saying the dog walker was “unquestionably” the person in a position to control the behaviour of the dogs at the time of the incident.

The dog walker argued she was not a true owner because she was “passively carrying out the wishes” of the clients who instructed her to put the booties on Forrest before allowing him outside, according to the ruling.

But the Appeal Court judges rejected that argument, finding 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,” the Appeal Court decision said.

The dog walker also argued that the attack took place in the clients’ home, and as both the homeowners and owners of Forrest, they should be liable for the injuries.

But the appeal panel said that liability isn’t governed by the location of the incident.

“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,” the decision said.

The higher court also found that under provincial law, liability isn’t restricted to those with the highest level of authority over the 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,” the decision said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 4, 2026.

The Canadian Press