Dog Bite (RTA)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-26
CLNP Page ID:	1643
Page Categories:	[Illegal Act & Impairment of Safety (LTB)], [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB), [Personal Injury]
Citation:	Dog Bite (RTA), CLNP 1643, <3p>, retrieved on 2024-04-26
Editor:	Smcgrory
Last Updated:	2022/06/29

TSL-00583-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141519 (ON LTB)

13. On July 6, 2017, the Tenant’s dog bit a neighbour. The bite did not occur on the residential premises, and the neighbour does not live on the premises.

14. Pursuant to section 64 of the RTA, the tenancy can be terminated if the Tenant’s dog substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by the Landlord or another tenant. The dog bite did not occur in the complex, and did not affect the Landlord or another tenant. It had nothing to do with the tenancy, and is not grounds for termination under section 64.

Heipel v Charles, 2020 CanLII 118433 (ON LTB)

7. The Landlord’s first witness, Rita Kathleen (RK), is the Tenant’s neighbour and the victim of the dog bite incident. Her evidence was that on April 6, 2020 at 7:00pm, she was leaving her apartment and was in the narrow hallway when the Tenant’s dog (a German Sheppard) bit her beside her stomach, close to her hip; when she realized the dog was about to attack her, she stuck out her foot to block him but was unsuccessful. The Tenant, then, came over to her and asked whether she had been scratched or bitten by the dog. After showing the Tenant the bite mark left by her dog, the Tenant was apologetic. A photograph of the bite taken the day after the incident was submitted into evidence.

8. RK proceeded to get medical assistance and was able to via phone; the nurse told her to call the Humane Society and submit a sample from the bite. RK testified that she had had many layers on her which she believes minimized the extent of the bite on her body.

9. RK testified that she suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder because her nephew was also killed by a friendly dog, which resurged as a result of this incident. She states that since this incident, every time she exits her unit now, she is very careful as she is uncomfortable around dogs.

10. The Landlord’s second witness, Kim Reid, has been the property manager of this rental unit for the past five years. She testified that on April 6, 2020, she received an email from Nicole Horton, an employee of the Condominium Management Corporation, about the dog bite incident involving the Tenant and that the dog should not be residing there as it is contrary to the corporation’s rules.

11. KR testified that there were legal proceedings commenced by the corporation to have the dog removed and an order was issued for the Tenant to remove her dog by July 3, 2020, but as of the date of the hearing, the dog remained on the residential premises. She knows this because the Tenant has told her and because there was another incident on August 18, 2020 whereby the Tenant’s dog attacked another resident and her dog, resulting in the police attending the premises.

...

16. The Landlord seeks a termination of the tenancy as there are a number of elderly residents in the building. Furthermore, this was an unprovoked attack on another resident at the property. The Landlord also seeks reimbursement of the application filing fee.

17. Based on the uncontested evidence before the Board I find that the Tenant’s dog has seriously impaired the safety of another individual, namely another resident of the condominium. I say this based on RK’s uncontested testimony that the Tenant’s dog bit her on April 6, 2020, in the common hallway of the building and its impact on her since the incident.

18. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would be unfair to grant relief from eviction pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Act, particularly because there was a subsequent incident as recent as August 18, 2020. The Landlord is unaware of any circumstances that would justify relief from eviction.

SWL-16978-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88645 (ON LTB)

15. The Tenant testified that the dog was protecting the Tenant and was justified to behave as it did. There is no indication of any threatening action or demeanour in the video before the dog bites DH.

16. DH was injured significantly by this dog bite. DH was required to attend the hospital for emergency treatment. DH’s left testicle was mangled beyond repair and was removed. The Tenant found this quite amusing, commenting that DH will “Not have the balls to” confront the Tenant in future. This was quite a well-timed turn of phrase, but I note that it shows no remorse or concern for the safety of any other person in the residential complex. Rather, the Tenant appears amused by the circumstances. Toward the end of the hearing, the Tenant also described this dog as safe generally and argued it does not require a muzzle, but the Tenant added that if the dog smelled the other tenants’ dog, or DH “You never know there”. That is, the Tenant by his own admission was well aware that the dog might attack if it simply smelled other residents of this complex, or their pet.

...

27. Even if the Tenant were innocently unaware of the need to leash and muzzle the dog until May 12, 2018, I find that on that date notice was served effectively including this information and the requirements associated with the same. The Tenant states that he did not review the information as it was taken from the unit by his mother and had no conversations with his mother about the content. In my view, even if the Tenant’s account is entirely accurate, he has deliberately avoided this notice. This is wilful blindness and does not alleviate any responsibility on the Tenant to control this dangerous animal.

28. If the Tenant disagreed with the findings made by Animal Services, this might have been addressed in the initial investigation (in which he declined to participate) or after receiving notice of the decision (at latest May 12, 2018). The Tenant did not do so. The decision is therefore unchallenged and I agree that it is unlawful for this dangerous dog to be allowed off leash or without muzzle in the common areas of the residential complex. BW testified that the video evidence of repeated incidents of the same after the order was issued is contrary to the law and unsafe. I was not presented with any persuasive evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the Tenant admits that the dog has not been muzzled even at the date of this hearing although he understood the allegations made against him and admitted he could easily have done so at any time.

29. The Tenant suggested this could be done going forward. I declined to grant any relief on the basis that the Tenant’s behaviour could be corrected going forward. The Tenant has had the opportunity for many months to change this behaviour, but at the date of this hearing considered the same either a source of amusement or pride. I am not inclined to believe that the Tenant has any sense of responsibility for this action or any genuine intent to comply with any order regarding the necessity to control the animal in any event.

30. I wholly accept the Tenant’s assertion that the Landlord has been eager to terminate this tenancy for a considerable time. I find that this in no way diminishes the Landlord’s authority to do so. I agree with the Tenant that this likely could have been avoided, relatively simply, if the Tenant simply complied with the behavioural changes necessary. Instead, the Tenant flaunted his ability to ignore the same.

31. In my view, this conduct substantially interfered with the Landlord's and the other tenants' reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex; with the Landlord’s lawful rights; and is an illegal act within the residential complex. I further find that the Tenant seriously impaired, and continues to seriously impair, the safety of other persons and this act occurred (and continues to occur) in the residential complex.

TEL-66307-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38865 (ON LTB)

7. SM testified that he went to the hospital and was treated for dog bite and it has left a mark on his leg.

...

15. ML testified at the hearing that she is a registered nursed and works in a health center that holds weekly clinic at the residential complex.

16. ML testified that they are very concerned about the wellbeing of the Tenant. ML testified that the Tenant is a very stressful person who can harm herself.

17. ML provided a letter from the doctor who holds weekly clinic at the residential complex and has been seeing the Tenant since 2013. The letter provides the details of the disability of the Tenant and her mental health condition. The letter also provided details of the abuse the Tenant went through in her early life and lost her children to CAS and how important the company of the dogs is to the Tenant.

...

20. DE testified that he put the dogs in the balcony and the dogs came out of the balcony and knocked him down too. DE testified that he was not aware of any notice by the Landlord to inspect the rental unit.

21. The Tenant testified at the hearing that she did not receive any notice by the Landlord to come and inspect the rental unit on that day. The Tenant testified that sometimes the Landlord leaves the notices rolled up in the door handle and they are misplaced.

22. The Tenant testified that she was not in the rental unit at that time. The Tenant testified that if she knew the Landlord was coming to inspect the rental unit, she would not have left the rental unit and would have secured the dogs.

23. The Tenant testified how she was abused in her early life and lost her children to CAS. The Tenant testified that doges are like children to her and she doesn’t know what she would do without them.

24. The Tenant apologized for what ever happened and is willing to comply with any terms and conditions to save the tenancy.

25. I have considered all of the relevant evidence provided at the hearing and find that SM was attacked and bitten by a dog inside the rental unit. The Tenant has three dogs and one of them bit SM and the other two dogs are not dangerous. There is a dispute about the 24 hours’ notice by the Landlord. The Tenant’s testimony is that she never received the notice and if she was aware that the Landlord was coming to inspect the rental unit, she would not have left the rental unit. The Landlord did not provide copy of the notice at the hearing.

26. I find that the Tenant is very vulnerable and is disabled by mental health conditions. The eviction is not the best remedy in this case. The dog that bit SM has been taken away and shall not be allowed back into the rental unit and other two dogs are not dangerous, but still they shall be secured properly so that they don’t harm anyone. Considering the history of the Tenant, she is treating the dogs like her children because she lost her children to CAS.

27. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would not be unfair to grant relief from eviction subject to the condition(s) set out in this order pursuant to subsection 83(1)(a) and 204(1) of the Act.

It is ordered that:

1. The Tenant shall not bring the dog back into the rental unit which was involved in the attack.

2. The Tenant shall not leave the other dogs unattended. If for some reason the Tenant has to leave the rental unit, the Tenant shall make sure that the dogs are secured properly.

3. The Tenant shall allow the Landlord to inspect the rental unit when required with a proper 24 hours’ notice and unsure that the dogs are secured and the persons coming in to inspect the rental unit are safe.

SOL-67514-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44559 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord gave the Tenant two (2) Notices to end the tenancy, indicating that the Tenant has seriously impaired the safety of another person in the residential complex (N7 Notice) and has committed an illegal act (N6 Notice), citing the same incident. The N7 and N6 Notices stated that on January 22, 2016, at approximately 1:15 p.m., the Tenant’s dog ran from the Tenant’s unit into the common area of the complex and attacked another tenant’s dog while it was being walked by a dog walker. The Tenant’s dog caused serious injuries to the other dog.

...

3. The Board received evidence from the City Animal Control Officer, Officer G. Officer G testified that he attended at the Tenant’s rental unit on the date of the incident. He testified that, due to the attack, charges were laid against the Tenant under the City By-Law for Responsible Animal Ownership in the City . By-Law prohibits dog owners from permitting their animals to be at large, when not under the control of some person. By-Law also prohibits dog owners from permitting their dog to behave in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of a person or domestic animal; or to bite or attack a person or domestic animal.

4. The Board also received evidence from ED who was walking the dog when it was attacked by the Tenant’s dog. ED testified that she walks the dog four (4) days a week. On January 22, 2016, ED was walking the dog down along a common area near Unit 47, the Tenant’s unit. She indicated that she had the dog on a leash. She testified that the Tenant’s dog, which she referred to as a bulldog, came charging at them and attacked She indicated that the attack “went on forever”. She indicated that she was afraid for her own well-being. She kicked the Tenant’s dog and let go of dog’s leash who then managed to run away. She knocked on the Tenant’s door and the Tenant came out, picked up her dog and shut the door. ED testified that as a result of the incident, she is now very nervous and always afraid she will get attacked by the Tenant’s dog, when she walks around the residential complex

5. The Board received the evidence of TH, the owner of the dog, who resides in Unit 96 in the residential complex. She testified that her dog is a service dog, who helps an individual cerebral palsy, walk and get groceries. She testified that on January 22, 2016, she received a phone call from a very distraught ED, telling her that her dog had been attacked. Meanwhile, the dog had run home and TH found her covered in blood. She took the dog to Beattie’s Animal Hospital, where she received eight (8) staples in different areas of her body. The dog was also given antibiotics and pain medication. TH testified that she has seen the Tenant’s dog before, unleashed and at large in the residential complex.

...

12. Based on the Landlord’s evidence, and in particular, the testimony of the City Animal Officer, in regard to charges laid against the Tenant for violation of By-Law, I find that the Tenant has committed an illegal act in the residential complex by allowing her dog to be unleashed and at large in the common areas, without her care and control, and by permitting the dog to attack another domestic animal.

...

18. I have also considered Section 76 of the Act and find, based on the Social Incident Report/Complaint and the photograph of a previous dog bite on a child, that the past behaviour of the Tenant’s dog has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes by other tenants.

19. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would be unfair to grant relief from eviction pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Act.

CEL-78416-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141535 (ON LTB)

Illegal act

7. Subsection (1)(1) of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) defines owner when used in relation to a dog as including a person who possesses or harbours the dog.

8. Section 5.1 of DOLA provides that:

The owner of a dog shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent it from,

(a) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal; or

(b) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.

9. Subsection 18 (1) of DOLA provides that an individual who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations or who contravenes an order made under this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or both.

10. To qualify as a ground for eviction, the illegal act should have the potential to affect the character of the premises or to disturb the reasonable enjoyment of the landlord or other tenants (Samuel Property Management Ltd. v. Nicholson 2002 CanLII 45065 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 470 ONCA at para. 28).

11. Section 75 permits the Board to issue an order terminating the tenancy whether or not the tenant has been convicted of an offence relating to an illegal act.

12. By failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent a dog the Tenant allowed at the residential complex from biting a person, the Tenant committed an illegal act contrary to subsection 5.1(a) of DOLA on a balance of probabilities.

13. The Tenant meets the definition of owner as set out in subsection 1(1) of DOLA because he possessed and harboured the dog at the time of the incident. The Tenant bears responsibility for the actions or failure to act by guests including occupants he permits in the unit. It is undisputed that the failure of SP to exercise reasonable precautions resulted in the Rottweiler biting the superintendent. SP ought to have taken reasonable precautions when walking three dogs one of which is a large animal. The illegal act is serious. A person at the complex was injured and the injuries necessitated attendance at the hospital.

Serious impairment of safety

14. The Tenant also seriously impaired the safety of the Landlord’s staff, in this circumstance the superintendent who was bitten by the Rottweiler. Sustaining three dog bites clearly amounts to serious impairment of safety. The superintendent had to go to the hospital for treatment and remains fearful and apprehensive at or around the Tenant’s unit during the course of her work.