Vicarious Liability of Homeowners in Dog Bite Cases
In the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario decision, Hartin v. Hynes, the Court considered the liability of the owner of a home where a dog bite incident occurred.[1]
Background
The appellant, Tamara Hartin, suffered significant injuries after being bitten by a dog while visiting a home owned by one of the respondents, Ashley Jo-Ann Bain. Ms. Bain had purchased the home for her father, Joseph Bain, and she did not reside at the home when the incident occurred. Ms. Bain was unaware that her father had allowed her brother, Rick Bain, to stay at the home while she was living in French Polynesia.
Rick Bain was the owner of a pit bull who resided at the home with him. On the day of the incident, the appellant was visiting Rick at the home when pit bull bit her on the leg, causing injury.
Initial Motion Decision
At the Superior Court level, the motion judge awarded summary judgment for Ms. Bain, finding that she was not directly or vicariously liable for the dog bite. The motion judge held that in accordance with the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, Ms. Bain was not a defined owner of the dog, or vicariously liable for the actions of her brother, Rick Bain.
In determining whether any agency-based relationship or vicarious liability could be found, the motion judge referred to the 2012 Court of Appeal for Ontario decision, Hav-A-Kar Leasing Ltd v. Vekselshtein.[2] In that decision, the Court held that in order for there to be actual authority of an agent, a “manifestation of consent” by the principal to the agent that the agent should act for or represent the principal is required.[3] Additionally, the Court held that apparent or ostensible authority in favour of an agent can only arise when the principal has “impliedly represented that another person has the authority to act on the principal’s behalf.”[4]
The motion judge held that there was no evidence to suggest that any agency relationship existed between Ms. Bain and her brother at the material time. The motion judge concluded that Ms. Bain’s relationship was only with her father, and that she was unaware of her brother having moved into her home.
Court of Appeal Decision
Ms. Hartin appealed the initial motion decision, arguing that the motion judge erred by failing to conclude that Ms. Bain was vicariously liable for the actions of the dog’s owner, Rick Bain. The appellant argued that the father, Joseph Bain, was an agent of Ms. Bain, and the father’s decision to allow Rick Bain to live at the home made Rick an agent of Ms. Bain.
The Court rejected this argument, stating that simply because Ms. Bain had purchased the home and assumed that her father would manage the property, did not establish an agency relationship between the dog’s owner and her in relation to his activities with the dog.
Additionally, the court stated that the appellant was unable to produce any authorities that would question the decision of the motion judge, and to find the respondent liable would “cast an impermissibly broad net of liability”.[5]
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent in the amount of $10,000.
Takeaways
- Simply being an owner of a property where a dog bite occurs is not enough to establish an agency relationship or vicarious liability between the property owner and a dog’s owner.
- A home owner’s relationship with a third party managing their property may not be enough to establish a further agency relationship between the property owner and a dog owner using the property if such use is unknown to the property owner.
- An implied representation that another person has the authority to act on a principal’s behalf is required to find an apparent agency relationship.
[1] Hartin v. Hynes, 2026 ONCA 227.
[2] Ibid at para 3.
[3] Hav-A-Kar Leasing Ltd v. Vekselshtein, 2012 ONCA 826 at para 42.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Hartin, supra note 1, at para 5.