The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a summary judgment finding that a property owner was not vicariously liable for injuries caused by a dog bite that occurred on her property, reinforcing limits on liability under both the Dog Owners’ Liability Act and the law of agency.
In Hartin v. Hynes, 2026 ONCA 227, the appellant was bitten by a pit bull named Blue while visiting a rural property owned by the respondent. The respondent lived abroad in French Polynesia and had purchased the property for her father, who allowed her brother to live there. The brother brought his dog, Blue, to the premises and permitted the animal to remain there for breeding purposes. When the bite occurred, both the appellant and the dog’s owner were present at the property.
Procedural History
The matter initially came before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Hartin v. Hynes, 2025 ONSC (June 13, 2025). The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, concluding that she was neither directly nor vicariously liable for the incident. The appellant appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.
Parties’ Positions
The appellant argued that the respondent should be held vicariously liable for her brother’s actions, contending that an agency relationship existed. According to this argument, the respondent’s father acted as her agent by allowing the brother to live at the property, thereby creating a chain of agency from the respondent to her brother.
The respondent maintained that she was not an “owner” within the meaning of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act and that no agency relationship existed. She submitted that her connection to the events was too remote to establish any liability for the dog bite.
Decision and Reasons
The Court of Appeal, per Huscroft, Zarnett, and Pomerance JJ.A., dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondent.
The Court affirmed the motion judge’s reasoning, holding that the respondent did not meet the definition of “owner” under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act because she had no knowledge of her brother’s activities at the property or of the dog’s presence. There was no evidence suggesting that she exercised control or authority over her brother or over anyone else residing there.
On the issue of vicarious liability, the Court found no agency relationship between the respondent and her brother. The brothers’ occupancy stemmed from an arrangement with the respondent’s father, who managed the property independently. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the father’s authorization effectively created agency on the respondent’s behalf, describing that proposition as unsupported in law.
The Court concluded that the respondent’s involvement was too remote to attract liability, and extending liability in such circumstances would improperly broaden existing legal principles.
Finally, the Court declined to entertain the appellant’s request for no costs, emphasizing that the legal principles of agency and ownership were well-established and not novel. In accordance with the usual rule, costs were awarded to the successful party.
Key Takeaways
This decision confirms that property ownership alone does not create vicarious liability for the actions of others who occupy or use the property, even when those actions result in injury. Absent direct involvement, control, or an agency relationship, liability will not extend to the titled owner.
At Flaherty McCarthy LLP, we represent insurers, property owners, and defendants in personal injury, occupiers’ liability, and coverage matters. Our litigators have extensive experience in defending claims involving alleged vicarious liability and statutory interpretation.
