Dog Bite (RTA)

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.