Dog Walker Owner Liability Court Rules Against Injury Claim

The Dog Walker Owner Liability ruling from Ontario’s Court of Appeal has clarified a key legal question under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA). The court ruled that a dog walker who controls a dog during an attack qualifies as an “owner” under the law. As a result, the dog walker cannot seek damages from the dog’s legal owners. The decision reinforces earlier case law and expands the understanding of legal responsibility for anyone who temporarily controls a dog.

Court Confirms Broad Definition of Owner

The appeal centered on the case of Nigro v. Luciano. Amanda Nigro worked as a professional dog walker for Michael and Amanda Luciano. She regularly walked their boxer, Forrest Gump, three times each week. She also had keys to the couple’s home and routinely cared for the dog.

NYC Art Week Opens With Millions in Nara Works

Gadot Finds Hope Against Rising Antisemitism

In February 2022, Forrest developed a paw infection. A veterinarian advised using protective booties during wet conditions. The owners informed Nigro about the treatment and explained when the booties should be used. Nigro agreed to follow those instructions during future walks.

However, while putting the booties on Forrest inside the owners’ home for the first time, the dog suddenly attacked her. The attack left her with multiple bite injuries. She later filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages under Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act.

“Get the important news before others—follow PhoenixQ today.”

Dog Walker Could Not Sue the Owners

The Lucianos responded with a motion for summary judgment. They argued that Nigro herself qualified as an owner because she possessed and controlled the dog during the incident.

The motion judge agreed. The judge ruled that one owner cannot recover damages from another owner under DOLA. Consequently, Nigro had no legal claim against the dog’s legal owners.

The judge also rejected her argument that she simply followed instructions from the owners. Instead, the court stressed that DOLA does not require ultimate authority over a dog. Physical possession and control are enough to establish ownership under the statute.

Appeal Court Supports Earlier Legal Principle

Nigro appealed the decision. She argued that she was not the dog’s true owner and only acted under the owners’ directions. She also claimed the attack occurred inside the owners’ home, making the case different from previous rulings.

Justice Pomerance rejected those arguments. She explained that instructions from the owners carried no legal weight when determining who controlled the dog. The judge emphasized that the person physically handling the dog makes the practical decisions at that moment.

The court also reaffirmed its earlier decision in Wilk v. Arbour. That ruling established that anyone who possesses and controls a dog immediately before an attack qualifies as an owner under DOLA.

Location Did Not Change Legal Responsibility

Nigro also argued that the attack happened inside the owners’ residence. Therefore, she claimed different legal rules should apply.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. Justice Pomerance explained that DOLA governs liability regardless of where the attack occurs. The law places responsibility on the person best positioned to prevent the attack, not on the location itself.

The court found several important facts supported Nigro’s status as an owner. She alone controlled Forrest during the incident. She regularly cared for the dog. Moreover, she had previously exercised physical control over him during numerous walks.

Decision Carries Wider Implications

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court’s ruling. The judgment highlights that temporary possession of a dog can create full legal responsibility under Ontario law.

Legal experts say the decision serves as an important warning for dog walkers, pet sitters, trainers, groomers, and anyone temporarily caring for a dog. Once they assume physical control, they may also assume legal responsibility for the animal’s actions.

Get the latest news, updates, and expert guidance on immigration matters—call +1 647-271-1646 today.