The appellant appealed summary judgment dismissing the claim against a homeowner arising from a serious dog bite injury at the property.
The Court of Appeal held that the respondent, who owned the house but lived abroad and did not know her brother was residing there with the dogs, was neither an owner for purposes of the Dog Owners' Liability Act nor vicariously liable through agency principles.
The court found no evidence that the respondent consented to her brother acting on her behalf or represented that he had authority to do so.
The appeal was dismissed and costs of $10,000 all inclusive were awarded to the respondent.
