Canada: "That’s Not My Dog": An Overview Of Dog Liability In British Columbia

Last Updated: July 25 2013
Article by Krista Prockiw

A man walks into a bar and sits down next to a woman with a dog at her feet.
"Does your dog bite," he asks.
A few minutes later, the dog takes a huge chunk out of the man's leg.
"I thought you said your dog didn't bite!" he says indignantly.
"That's not my dog" says the woman.


While dogs may be man's best friend, they are rapidly becoming a very real enemy for the insurance industry. According to the Insurance Information Institute dog bites accounted for more than one-third of all homeowners' insurance liability claim dollars paid out in 2012, costing more than $489 million, with an average amount of $29,752 per claim.

In the United States, this situation has been described as reaching "epidemic" proportions and the same could be said of this country. Canada has about 10% of the population of the United States, and the Canada Safety Counsel estimates that about 460,000 Canadians are bitten by dogs each year. In addition, several recent high profile dog bite incidents have brought the issue to the forefront of insurers' minds, with some insurers going so far as to refuse to underwrite insurance for homeowners with certain dog breeds.

This paper will explore the liability exposure of an owner whose dog, unlike the one in the titular joke, does indeed bite.


When a dog causes an injury to a person, liability may be imposed on the basis of the scienter doctrine - a special kind of liability related to animals, general negligence or pursuant to the Occupier's Liability Act.

a. Scienter:

The scienter doctrine was developed as, and remains, a form of strict liability. If the conditions for scienter are found, the liability is absolute and does not depend upon proof of negligence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal in Janota-Bzowska v. Lewis,[1997] B.C.J. No. 2053 stated that in order for scienter to apply, the Plaintiff (not Defendant) must show three things:

  1. that the Defendant was the owner or keeper of the dog;
  2. that the dog had manifested a propensity to cause the type of harm occasioned; and
  3. that the owner knew of that propensity.

Scienter has the effect of placing upon an owner who is aware of a propensity to do harm an absolute duty to prevent the dog from acting upon its propensity. However, that duty would appear to be met where the dog is properly restrained, the Plaintiff is properly warned of the hazard or interferes with the dog. [Hall v. Sorley [1980] B.C.J. No. 1884 (BCSC)].

i. Owner or Keeper of Dog

As the joke goes, "that's not my dog". Proof of ownership of the dog is the first criterion which must be established before scienter can apply.

While it will be self-evident in most cases, ownership of the dog in question was the key issue in the recent case of Prasad v. Wepruk,2004 BCSC 578. There the Defendant claimed that his dog had died two months prior to the incident and that he did not own the dog which bit the Plaintiff. The Court, after hearing evidence from neighbours who had seen the dog on the property and the police to whom the Defendant admitted owning the dog in the immediate aftermath of the incident, found that the Defendant did own the dog.

The British Columbia Provincial Court in McLean v. Thompsons, 2009 BCPC 415, discussed the concept of a "keeper" of a dog also being liable in scienter. The Court quoted from a textbook which stated that a keeper is someone who "harbours and controls the animal, like a trainer ... or an occupier who took care of a vicious dog left on the premises by a previous tenant". [para. 39] The Court held that "keeping" therefore implies the assumption of responsibility or the acceptance of a charge or duty in respect of the dog. In that case, the owner's parents, at whose house the owner was visiting for a period of time, were held not to be "keepers".

ii. Manifested a Propensity

It is not necessary for a dog to have previously caused the specific type of harm on a previous occasion. It is enough if the owner knew that the dog had a propensity or manifested a trait to do that particular type of harm, even if it had not actually caused that particular harm.

It is obvious that a prior incident of biting will constitute a propensity; however, in some cases the conduct is not so clear. The Courts have held that the conduct of a dog which demonstrates a propensity to do harm include:

  • Where a St. Bernard "was known to break free from its chain and run around town, barking, and jumping at people" it was held by the court that "(t)aken as a whole, the St. Bernard had a manifested propensity to be aggressive and to cause the type of harm occasioned here". [Ross v. Vidnes 2012 SKQB 317]
  • Barking, growling and chasing mail carriers is enough to prove a propensity to bite, at least mail carriers. [Weeks v. Baloniak, 2003 BCSC 1684, overturned on other issue, 2005 BCCA 193]
  • A dog coming to the limits of its leash at passersby barking and snarling was enough to establish that the dog was of a vicious nature. [Woods v. Standish,[1991] B.C.J. No. 1004 (BCSC)]

Conversely, conduct which the Courts have held does not demonstrate a propensity to do harm include:

  • While embarrassing, a dog's propensity to "hump" people's legs is not an indication that the dog is a source of danger. [Taller v. Goldenshtein, 1992 CanLii 1220 (BCCA)]
  • Chasing deer is not evidence of a propensity to jump up on people. [Janota-Bzowska, supra]
  • Barking and appearing on occasion to tug at the leash may not be a manifestation of a vicious temperament [Lewis v. Robinson,2002 BCCA 280]

iii. The Owner Knew Of This Propensity

It is not enough to merely establish ownership and a propensity on the part of the dog to do harm. It is further necessary that the owner of the dog actually knew of this propensity. Seeing the dog actually bite someone on a prior occasion would clearly constitute knowledge. Even previously biting the owner when the owner attempted to take away a bone has constituted knowledge. [Abdolabbas v. Lonergan,[1998] B.C.J.No. 2549 (BC Prov. Court)]

As above, a dog need not have caused the specific type of harm that it inflicted on a prior occasion for the doctrine of scienter to apply. It is sufficient if, to the owner's knowledge, the dog manifested a trait to do that kind of harm.

However, proof of knowledge of a vicious propensity does not apply to animals feraenaturae; that is, animalswhich are by reason of their species normally dangerous. Animals of this class are never regarded as safe and liability attaches for the harm they may do without proof that the particular animal is savage. Wolf-dog hybrids have been held to come within this class of animal [McLean v. Thompson, 2009 BCPC 0415]. While outside the scope of this paper, not surprisingly, so too have tigers [Cowles v. Balac,2005 CanLii 2038 (Ont. S.C.)] and goats [Pittman v. Morin, 2010 NSSM 56].

iv. At the end of their leash: Limits on the scope of Scienter

One issue which has been identified recently by the courts is whether the doctrine of scienter will apply when an animal is leashed but nonetheless causes harm.

This question was raised, but not conclusively answered, in two recent court decisions.

In the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench decision of Ross v. Vidnes, 2012 SKQB 317, the Court commented that a crucial factor for liability under the doctrine of scienter is control of the dog. The Court went on to state that:

"If an animal is caged, chained, or leashed, but nevertheless manages to inflict injury on a plaintiff, it has been held, in some cases, that the doctrine of scienter is inapplicable.The doctrine of scienter has been applied only where the animal has escaped from the owner's control."

In Ross, the dog was located within the owner's home but the front door was missing the top window portion and the large St. Bernard was able to jump up, reach out and bite the plaintiff who was standing on the front porch. The court ultimately held that the "amount of control exercised over the St. Bernard within the home was inadequate, as it was able to stick its head out of the door window. The St. Bernard was not restrained within the home."

This issue was again touched upon by the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench in Russell v. Aventriep 2013 NBQB 134. That case involved an altercation between two dogs, one of which was on leash at the time of the incident. The incident occurred when the Plaintiff's Pomeranian ran across the road in front of its house to approach the Defendant's German Shepherd which was walking on leash with its owner. As the Court noted, "some barking ensued" and "both dogs began baring their teeth and growling at each other". While the defence was raised that the Pomeranian was the aggressor, the Court noted that if it was aggressive towards the German Shepherd this "was not an aggression rooted in the true strength and ferocity of the much smaller dog". Ultimately the Pomeranian was bitten by the German Shepherd.

The Court held that the German Shepherd had not displayed any form of aggression before the incident and accordingly did not have a propensity to act in the way that it did so as to establish either negligence or liability under scienter. However, the Court did note that the fact that the German Shepherd was leashed and being escorted by the owner raised some concerns regarding the applicability of the doctrine of scienter. The Court, having already held that the German Shepherd did not have a propensity to act in an aggressive matter, did not find it necessary to determine the issue of whether the doctrine of scienter applied given the German Shepherd was leashed.

Accordingly, this issue remains to be conclusively determined. However, it is an interesting point and one to keep in mind when considering the applicability of the scienter doctrine.

b. Negligence:

Even if the requirements of the doctrine of scienter have not been established, a Plaintiff may still recover damages by establishing negligence on the part of either the owner of the dog or the owner of the property where the injury took place.

To succeed in an action based on negligence, the Plaintiff must prove, on a balance of probabilities that:

  1. The owner knew, or ought to have known, that the dog was likely to create a risk of injury to third persons, including the Plaintiff; and
  2. The owner failed to take reasonable care to prevent such injury.

Actions in negligence may be brought for injuries caused by a dog other than by their bite. For instance, in Shelvey v. Bicknell,[1996] B.C. J. No. 1179 (BCCA), the Plaintiff was injured by being knocked over by the Defendant's Rottweiller. In Ruckheim v. Robinson,[1995] B.C.J. No. 163 (BCCA), the Defendant's dog escaped from its pen and ran out to the adjoining highway into a collision with a motorcycle being driven by the Plaintiff, causing him to be thrown off. The Courts found negligence on the part of the dog owner for allowing the dog to get loose in Ruckheim but not in Shelvey.

c. Difference between scienter and negligence:

A key difference between scienter and negligence is that once the requirements of scienter are established, liability is absolute, and the Plaintiff is not required to show breach of a standard of care. In addition, as we have seen above, to establish scienter the Plaintiff must show that the owner actually knew of the dog's propensity. The test is therefore subjective to that dog and that owner. Whereas in negligence, an objective test applies. That is, whether the owner knew or ought to have known that the dog was likely to injure the Plaintiff. [Prasad v. Wepruk, supra].

d. Occupiers' Liability:

In addition to being held liable under scienter or negligence, a Defendant may also face exposure under the Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 337, which provides that:

3 (1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take care that in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that a person, and the person's property, on the premises, and property on the premises of a person, whether or not that person personally enters on the premises, will be reasonably safe in using the premises.

(2) The duty of care referred to in subsection (1) applies in relation to the

  1. condition of the premises,
  2. activities on the premises, or
  3. conduct of third parties on the premises.

As in negligence, in order for liability to be imposed, it must be established that the Defendants knew or ought to have known that the dog was likely to create a risk of harm to third parties, including the Plaintiff, and that the Defendants failed to take reasonable care to prevent such harm. It is not enough to merely have a dog on one's own property [Lewis v. Robinson 2001 BCSC 643] In Janota-Bzowska v. Lewis, supra,the court held that:

"An occupier cannot be liable for a sudden act of a fierce and violent nature which is altogether contrary to the usual habits of the dog in question either under the common law or the Occupiers Liability Act."

It is possible for a Defendant, who did not actually own the dog, to be found liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for a Plaintiff's injuries. In Konkin v. Bartel,[1988] B.C.J. No. 1716 (BCSC), the Plaintiff had interceded between two fighting dogs and was bitten on her hand. The Plaintiff had been invited (among others) to the Defendant's property to spend the Labour Day weekend and had been advised by the Defendant that it would be alright to bring her dog. The other dog involved in the fight was owned by the Defendant's parents. It had a history of fighting with other male dogs and had indeed been involved in a fight the day before the Plaintiff's incident. The Court held that the Defendant, as an occupier, owed a duty to see that the Plaintiff would be reasonably safe in using the premises and had failed to do so by not ensuring that the dogs were restrained.

Conversely in the McLean case discussed above, while the owners were held to be liable under scienter by virtue of the fact that the animal was a wolf-dog hybrid, their parents, at whose house the attack occurred, were not liable under the Occupier's Liability Act, as the Court held it was not reasonably foreseeable that the wolf-dog hybrid, who had no history of aggression, would suddenly bite the Plaintiff.


The type of dogs involved in the reported decisions are generally all large breeds; Bouviers (Prasad, Abdolabbas) Labrador Retrievers (Janota-Bzowska), Rottweilers (Shelvey) and assorted cross breeds. However, the Court in Shelvey v. Bicknell commented in obiter that "to attribute to the animal propensities on account of its breed alone would require a more compelling evidentiary base than is present here." This comment was referred to in Levesque v. Miko, 2001 BCPC 96, where the Court noted that the mere fact that the dog in question was a German Shepherd could not, standing alone, establish that it had a propensity for aggression and that the owners were therefore presumably aware of its disposition.


The old adage that "every dog is entitled to the first bite" generally applies under scienter, negligence or occupiers' liability. Until a dog has had its first bite, it has not demonstrated a propensity, so scienter would not apply. Further, before the first bite, such lesser damages would not be foreseeable. Therefore, neither negligence nor a breach of an occupier's duty of care would be established.

However proving such defence, and dealing with all of the other legal issues related to dog bite cases, could still be enough to put owners and their beloved pets in the doghouse.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Krista Prockiw
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.