The appellant appealed his conviction under subsection 5.1(a) of the Dog Owners Liability Act for failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent his dog from attacking and killing a neighbour's dog.
The trial judge found the appellant was the "owner" of the dog under the Act's expanded definition, despite evidence that the dog was actually owned by a subtenant residing at the appellant's premises.
The appellate court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to clearly explain how the appellant fell within the statutory definition of "owner" (possession or harbouring), and by not addressing the standard of proof or the reasonableness of precautions taken.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.
