Court File and Parties
Citation: R. v. Matthews, 2026 ONCJ 180 Date: March 12, 2026 Court File: 2660 999 24 064, 2660 999 24 138 Ontario Court of Justice
Between: His Majesty the King and Karen Matthews
Before: Justice of the Peace S. St. Peter
Heard: July 22, 2025 and December 4, 2025 Judgement: March 12, 2026
(67 paras.)
Counsel: C. Freed, for the Defendant J. Schmidtz and Poziomka, for the Prosecution
Reasons for Judgement
S. St. Peter, J.P.
Introduction
1Karen Matthews (the defendant) was charged with the offence of being the owner of a dog, did fail to prevent the dog from biting, attacking contrary to s. 5.1 of the Dog Owner Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.D.16 as amended [DOLA]. The charge relates to an incident on October 6, 2023, in Simcoe, Ontario where Russell Herriott sustained injuries to his forearm, a result of an altercation with neighborhood dog, Joah.
2Furthermore, the City of Simcoe has commenced proceedings under Part IX of the Provincial Offences Act pursuant to s. 4(1)(a) of the Dog Owner Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.D.16 as amended [DOLA]
Background:
3The trial and hearing commenced on July 22, 2025, and ended December 4, 2025. The defendant appeared for trial along with her legal representative Mr. Freed. There were two statements under s. 161 of the Provincial Offences Act and one Part 3 information before the court. One of the statements was withdrawn by the Prosecution. An amendment was made on consent to the Part 3 information to include the correct charging provision under the Dog Owner Liability Act (DOLA).
The Issues:
4The court must decide:
a) Whether Ms. Matthews committed the offence of owner fail to prevent dog from attacking or biting contrary to s. 5.1 of DOLA. The onus is on the Prosecution to prove this offence beyond a reasonable doubt in the trial.
b) Whether an order should be made under s. 4 of DOLA if the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to others. The court must be satisfied on findings of fact that the order for control of the dog and/or destruction is necessary for the protection of the public. The onus is on the Prosecution and findings of fact are based on a balance of probabilities.
Essential Elements Not in Dispute
5The essential elements of the alleged offence that are not in dispute include:
Identity of Karen Matthews
Karen Matthews is the owner of the dog, Joah who was involved in the interaction with Mr. Herriott
Date, location and jurisdiction of the alleged incident – October 6, 2023 on Donly St. South in Simcoe, Ontario, Norfolk County.
Issues in Dispute:
6The parties dispute:
Whether or not dog, Joah bit or attacked Russell Herriott on October 6, 2023
Whether Karen Matthews exercised reasonable precautions to prevent a bite or attack from her dog against Mr. Herriott.
The Trial
7The trial included two prosecution witnesses: the alleged victim Russell Herriott and the investigating Norfolk County Ontario Provincial Police Officer, Paul Rooney. A total of ten exhibits were submitted by the parties, two for the prosecution and 8 for defence. Defence also called two witnesses: the defendant, Karen Matthews and Ronald McJannet.
Background:
8The defendant, Karen Matthews and alleged victim Russell Herriott both reside on Freeman Cres, Simcoe, in Norfolk County, Ontario. Mr. Herriott resides at 23 Freeman Cres and Ms. Matthews reside at 26 Freeman Cres. They are essentially neighbours who live across from one another. Ms. Matthews acknowledges she is the owner of the dog involved, Joah.
Evidence of Russell Herriott
9Russell Herriott testified that on October 6, 2023, he was on his daily walk in the neighbourhood. He takes the same route each day by travelling from Freeman Cres turning southbound onto Donly Drive South. On this day, when he turned right from Freeman Cres onto Donly Drive South walking southbound, he noticed there was a female and her dog walking northbound on the same sidewalk towards him. He recognized her as his neighbour, later identified as Karen Matthews. He stated that when he first observed her, she was approximately 75 feet away.
He stated that he had his cell phone in his hand and was likely reading a text message. He also had a water bottle in one of his hands. He was walking southbound on the left-hand side of the sidewalk, and she was walking northbound near her left side of the same sidewalk with her dog Joah, to her left. In relatively close proximity to the sidewalk, on his right, was a bushy, treelined grassy boulevard which abuts the backyards of a series of homes. This grassy area would be to the left of Ms. Matthews and her dog as they were walking in the opposite direction, coming towards Mr. Herriott. To Mr. Herriott’s left were parked cars next to a grassy boulevard.
He noticed that the dog was leashed and when he and Ms. Matthews approached each other. He moved closer to the boulevard side of the sidewalk and continued walking. It was at this time he recalled that just after passing by Ms. Matthews and the dog, he heard some noise which caused him to turn his body to observe. He testified that it was at that time, he observed the dog to rise up on his front legs and attached himself to his right forearm, making physical contact. He raised his right arm in an attempt to stop the dog but with no success.
At this time, Mr. Herriott recalls that Ms. Matthews was ‘spun around’ by her dog altering their respective positions on the sidewalk, such that Ms. Matthews was now on the outside of the sidewalk and the dog in between her and Mr. Herriott. He testified that he observed Ms. Matthews struggling to gain control over the dog, ultimately doing so after he released from Mr. Herriott. The incident lasted about 3-5 seconds.
Mr. Herriott indicated that at no time did Ms. Matthews alter her course when approaching him on the sidewalk. She did not move to the left or right to increase the space between them while crossing paths. Mr. Herriott stated clearly that he also did not observe Ms. Matthews to change or alter her tether to the dog while approaching.
As a result of the interaction, Mr. Herriott sustained a total of four puncture wounds to his right forearm, two upper and two lower puncture wounds.
Under cross-examination, Mr. Herriott was asked why he did not move further off the sidewalk or away from Ms. Matthews and the dog when they were approaching. He testified that given he had no direct prior negative experience with the dog, he saw no need to adjust his position other than moving slightly to his left.
He further testified under cross-examination that he did not observe Ms. Matthews motion or coach her dog into a sit position as they approached each other. He testified that she ‘didn’t break stride, so I don’t know how the dog could have been attempting to sit.’
Evidence of Officer Rooney
O.P.P Officer Rooney testified to his involvement in the incident as it relates to Mr. Herriott and Ms. Matthews. He indicated that upon attending the hospital to speak with Mr. Herriott about the incident, he learned that Mr. Herriott suffered puncture wounds to his forearm, although the number of puncture wounds were not consistent with Mr. Herriott’s testimony or the photographic exhibits submitted by the prosecution. He learned about the puncture wounds as a result of follow-up information provided to him as Mr. Herriott’s arm was bandaged.
Further to his investigation he attended to the home address of Karen Matthews and upon her answering the door he was satisfied with her identity as she responded to the interaction, her address matched that of Karen Matthews in the police NICHE system and her likeness matched the description provided by the complainant, Mr. Herriott. He testified that when he knocked or rang the doorbell, a barking dog was observed at the front window to the residence. Given her previous interactions with police in relation to the dog and that the dog responded to her during their interaction, he was satisfied she was the owner of the said dog.
He informed her of his intention to initiate proceedings for failing to control the dog and attended a later date to serve a summons. He stated that on both occasions the dog was observed to be barking and behaving aggressively. He remarked ‘this dog appeared to be unusual to me. I’ve attended thousands of doors in my career, and I’ve encountered several hundreds of dogs that have barked at me at the door to alert their owners that somebody’s there. This was on the higher end, as far as aggressiveness, in my humble opinion, as far as attending doors and having dogs’.
Evidence of Karen Matthews
Ms. Matthews testified that she was the owner of Joah, the dog involved in the incident and that the incident occurred on October 6, 2023, while walking her dog northbound on the sidewalk on Donly Drive South in Simcoe, Norfolk County, Ontario. She agrees that she and her dog and Mr. Herriott were approaching each other on the sidewalk.
Ms. Matthews offered a different account than the testimony provided by Mr. Herriott other than the following: that she was the owner of Joah, the dog involved in the incident, and that an incident occurred on October 6, 2023, while walking her dog northbound on the sidewalk on Donly Drive South in Simcoe, Norfolk County. She agrees that her leashed dog was walking to her left side as they approached the oncoming pedestrian, Mr. Herriott.
She testified that she saw Mr. Herriott coming upon her and Joah quickly and waving his hand in the air. She stated that on approach, she found herself and Joah to be in a confined space on the sidewalk with a bush and treelined area to her left which caused her to place her dog in a sit position.
At no time did she feel that Mr. Herriott was approaching her in a threatening or aggressive manner.
She testified that in her opinion there was a 50/50 responsibility shared amongst herself and Mr. Herriott for adjusting their course on approach. She did not alter her course on approach by stepping off the sidewalk as she did not want to compromise her traction on the grassy area given it had rained the previous day.
When questioned about the physical altercation between her dog Joah and Mr. Herriott, she stated that although she did not observe how the puncture wounds were incurred, she believes her dog rose up and placed both of his front paws/claws on his forearm. Under cross-examination she testified that because Joah has straight teeth, the puncture wounds could not possibly be sustained by same. She testified that Joah’s claws were long and given that he rose up and made contact with Mr. Herriott, it was the long claws that caused the puncture wounds.
In examination in chief, when asked about prior acts of aggression, she responded by saying he was not previously involved in incidents of aggression. However, under cross-examination, when previous allegations by a neighbour were put to her, she contradicted herself, having determined that because the matter was withdrawn by the court, there was no incident of aggression.
Evidence of Ronald McJannet
The defence called witness, Ronald McJannet. He testified that he has been a certified dog trainer for over 15 years and had occasion to train and assess Joah on more than one occasion prior to October 6, 2023. Although he was not qualified as an expert, the court permitted his testimony as a lay opinion witness.
He had completed obedience training with Joah when the dog was less than a year old. He also completed behavioural assessments thereafter although he could not recall the exact years or dates. No assessment reports were provided in support of his testimony.
He testified that an assessment in 2021 was requested by Ms. Matthews as a result of an incident where a neighbour used a golf club in a threatening manner against Joah. As a result of his assessment, he found Joah to be nervous but performed well overall. A further assessment, again, prior to the present allegations before the court, indicated that Joah exhibited some nervous behaviours including being unable to remain in his sit position and jerking his head when around a busy, populated gas station.
Legislation – Dog Owner Liability Act
The charging section of the Dog Owner Liability Act, section 5.1 requires the prosecution to prove the offence, in this case of owner of dog, did fail to prevent the dog from biting or attacking a person or domestic animal.
The section reads:
Owner to prevent dog from attacking.
5.1 The owner of a dog shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent it from,
a) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal; or
b) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.
Findings of fact under this section must rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus is on the Prosecution to prove their case to this standard of proof.
Section 4(1) of DOLA allows for proceedings against owner of dog where:
Proceedings against owner of dog
4(1) A proceeding may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that.
a) The dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal.
b) The dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals or.
c) The owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from,
i) Biting or attacking a person or domestic animal, or
ii) Behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.
- Findings of fact in these proceedings shall be made on a balance of probabilities, meaning there would be a finding of fact that it would be more likely not that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or animal.
Legislation – Part IX, section 161 of the Provincial Offences Act, Ontario
- Pursuant to section 161 of the Provincial Offences Act, I have jurisdiction to proceed with the statement under s. 4(1)(a) of the Dog Owner Liability Act.
Orders under statutes
S. 161 Where, by any other Act, a proceeding is authorized to be taken before the Ontario Court of Justice or a justice for an order, including an order for the payment of money, and no other procedure is provided, this Act applies with necessary modifications to the proceeding in the same manner as to a proceeding commenced under Part III, and for the purpose,
(a) in place of an information, the applicant shall complete a statement in the prescribed form under oath attesting, on reasonable and probable grounds, to the existence of facts that would justify the order sought; and
(b) in place of a plea, the defendant shall be asked whether or not the defendant wishes to dispute the making of the order. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 161; 2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 13 (6).
Analysis and Findings of Fact
s. 5.1 Dog Owner Liability Act [DOLA]
The analysis will reflect both proceedings before me, the trial for the offence alleged contrary to s. 5.1 of DOLA and the hearing pursuant to s. 4(1)(a) of DOLA, recognizing the separate and distinct Standards of Proof.
There is uncontradicted evidence that Karen Matthews is the owner of the dog, Joah. The totality of the evidence I have considered sheds no doubt that Joah, on October 6, 2023, in Simcoe, Ontario, was involved in a physical altercation with Mr. Herriott, leaving four puncture wounds on his right forearm, injuries for which he sought medical attention immediately after.
The question for the court is whether the altercation is to be considered a bite and/or attack based on the evidence before the court. I am satisfied that the evidence presented indicates that Mr. Herriott was attacked and bitten by Joah the dog. Any other conclusion would seem improbable at best and illogical at worst.
Ms. Matthews’ testimony, in contradiction to that of Mr. Herriott, was that she did not directly see her dog latch on to his arm. It was her belief, not direct observation, that it was the dog’s front claws which made contact with his forearm, not his teeth. Other than photographs illustrating a measuring tape alongside his front paw and another photo with his teeth exposed, there was no direct evidence to suggest the width between his incisors or his front paw aligned and/or did not align with the width of puncture wounds on either side of the complainant’s forearm. If the injuries were from claws, one would reasonably expect to see scratch marks along the forearm along with the puncture wounds. A 100-pound dog, rearing up and using its front claws to latch onto someone holding hard and long enough to cause a puncture wound would surely leave other residual marks on the victim.
She further testified that her dog Joah, has a straight tooth line and that he ‘does not have the two long pronounced incisors with a short upper key’. The categories of teeth were not identified in evidence. Her testimony was in direct contradiction to defence exhibit #9, photo of Joah’s upper teeth which clearly shows the dog as having two pronounced, long upper teeth.
Furthermore, the evidence suggests that there was no precipitating event prior to the physical altercation between the dog and Mr. Herriott that would have triggered the dog to behave aggressively. Both Mr. Herriott and Ms. Matthews attested to this in their respective testimony.
Notwithstanding, Ms. Matthews testimony later contradicts this attestation when she is asked why she believes the dog lunged at Mr. Herriott. She stated that Mr. Herriott was had his arm was raised above his head on approach and that she pulled the leash up and placed her hand on his rear end to place him in a sit position ‘really fast’ because Mr. Herriott was moving quickly towards her suggesting she there may be a trigger event such that she would need to maintain control of the dog.
The dog physically latched onto Mr. Herriott’s right forearm lasting approximately 3-5 seconds at which time he was able to shake him loose, while at the same time Ms. Matthews was trying to regain control of Joah.
When asked what steps she took to control the dog when approaching Mr. Herriott, Ms. Matthew testified that on approach, she attempted to place Joah in the ‘sit’ position, a position that she was trained to execute with her dog during an earlier training session.
She explained that because they were in a confined space, with the dog between her (on her left) and the bushes that lined the row of the houses to their left she provided the command for a sit position. At no time did the complainant, Russell Herriott observe her to alter her behaviour when walking towards him. While recognizing the confined space, Ms. Matthews testified that she elected not to walk on the grass on either side of the sidewalk as she did not want to compromise her traction while walking.
Mr. Herriott, on the other hand, did alter his course by moving to his left creating more space between the parties in anticipation of crossing each other’s paths.
The Dog Owner Liability Act section 1 does not provide a definition for the words bite or attack. I therefore turn to the definition of attack and bite in its everyday, ordinary meaning. “The words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”.1 From the 2026 Oxford language dictionary2,
Bite a verb meaning (of a person or animal) use the teeth to cut into or through something.
Attack a verb meaning (of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill.
The primary intent of the Dog Owner Liability Act is to ensure the protection of the public from dogs that pose a menace to safety of persons and other animals and to require owners of dogs to take every reasonable precaution to prevent injuries to others person and animals in the community.
Strict liability offences, as in this case under DOLA, do not require proof of aggression or intent to injure by the dog3. The Prosecution simply needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog, Joah, did in fact bite or attack Mr. Herriott. I conclude given the plain reading of the Dog Owner Liability Act and the ordinary meaning of ‘bite’ and ‘attack’ and based on the totality of the evidence before me, that the dog did indeed bite and attack Mr. Herriott, causing injury to his right forearm which required medical attention.
I do not accept the evidence of the defendant. Ms. Matthews testimony lacked credibility and reliability. Her answers were often indirect and evasive, requiring the prosecution and her legal representative to repeat their questions to her. Some of her testimony contradicted her earlier testimony. She testified that her dog ‘popped up to get the cell phone’ from Mr. Herriott but also testified that she did not directly observe the physical altercation between Joah and Mr. Herriott. She testified that she did not see Joah’s paws directly on Mr. Herriott’s arm but was confident in her belief that it was the dog’s claws that caused the puncture wounds.
Finally, in examination in chief she was directly asked if her dog had ever attacked anyone before and she responded with no. However, under cross examination, when previous allegations were raised involving a neighbour using a golf club to defend another neighbour from Joah, she acknowledged that the dog was off leash and that no charges resulted from the incident although the female neighbour had claimed she had been attacked by Joah. She denied further allegations of aggressive behaviour by her dog with others.
Joah was subsequently brought to a dog trainer, Ronald McJannet in 2021 for a behaviour assessment. Mr. McJannet testified he understood the reason for the assessment was in relation to an incident with a neighbour using golf clubs to threaten the dog which has affected Joah’s behaviour but couldn’t recall further details. He indicated he observed some nervous behaviours during the assessment but did not provide further details.
I must further consider whether the Prosecution has proven Karen Matthews also failed to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the bite and/or attack. It was Ms. Matthews testimony that when she approached Mr. Herriott on the sidewalk, she and her dog were in a confined space, close to the tree and bush line to her left. Other than her attempt to place the dog into a sit position, Ms. Matthew did not alter her path to create space between her and Mr, Herriott as they were to pass each other. She testified that she was focused on Joah and not the person coming towards her. She further stated she did not step off the sidewalk onto the grassy area because it was wet and she did not want to compromise her traction.
It was her belief that there was a 50/50 responsibility of each party to adjust to accommodate the crossing of their paths. She stated:
I felt that Mr. Herriott’s coming in and walking straightly into us, not going around, staying on the sidewalk as he said, with- clearly wasn’t room for all three of us, and the fact that he was waving his arm was, as the police put it, it was a 50/50 responsibility and that was the part of the responsibility that he would recognize that there was a trigger and that his arm and the waving of his arm was part of and how close he was and that he didn’t move around in any way shape or form was his 50 percent responsibility.
Given her belief that Mr. Herriott was waving his arm and this could have presented as a trigger to Joah, it is reasonable to expect a dog owner would have shifted their course to create more space between the dog, themselves and the oncoming pedestrian. It was her testimony that given the confined space as they approached each other, she attempted to place the dog in a sit position but did not shift her position to the edge or off the sidewalk. Despite previous negative interactions between Joah and others and notwithstanding the encroaching of space from the bush and tree line, Ms. Matthews took insufficient precautions to prevent the occurrence.
Even if I do not accept the evidence of the defendant, the defendant’s evidence still does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind as I find as fact that the puncture wounds on Mr. Herriott’s forearm are as a result of a bite, the puncture wounds from teeth, not claws. Ms. Matthew’s account that her dog rose up with his claws latching onto the victim causing puncture wounds on top and bottom of the arm seems implausible. This would require the dog to have turned his paws either inward or outward such that a paw was on either side of Mr. Herriott’s forearm.
I did accept the evidence of the prosecution for the following reasons. The evidence of Mr. Herriott and the officer was credible and consistent. Mr. Herriott’s account of the incident held up under cross examination. Photographs of the injuries support his assertion that his injuries were the result of a dog bite. Officer Rooney’s investigation supports Mr. Herriott’s claim he was attacked by the dog, Joah, on October 6, 2023.
I have considered the totality of the evidence and having regard for the respective weight given to each piece of evidence, I find that Ms. Matthews, being the owner of the dog, did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the bite and/or attack. I further find the dog, Joah, owned by Karen Matthews did bite or attack Mr. Herriott.
The prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offence: owner did fail to prevent dog from biting or attacking Mr. Russell Herriott on October 6, 2023, in Simcoe, Norfolk County. And, that she did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the bite and/or attack. There will be a finding of guilt and conviction will register.
Statements Under s. 161 and s. 4(1)(a) [DOLA](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-d16/latest/rso-1990-c-d16.html)
Before the court there is a statement under section 161 of the Provincial Offences Act. In this statement, it is alleged that Karen Matthews, owner of dog, Joah, contravened provision 4(1)(a) of the Dog Owner Liability Act (DOLA). It is alleged that she failed to prevent the dog from biting or attacking a person or domestic animal.
The standard of proof for proceedings under Part IX of the Provincial Offences Act and s. 4 of DOLA is a balance of probabilities. In reviewing the evidence and based on my findings outlined above, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Karen Matthews is the owner of dog, Joah, and that she failed to prevent the dog from biting or attacking a person.
If a finding of fact is made that the dog has bitten or attacked a person and the court is satisfied that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, the court may order under s. 4(3),
a. That the dog be destroyed in the manned specified in the order; or
b. That the owner of the dog take the measures specified in the order for the more effective control of the dog or for purposes of public safety
Section 4(4) of DOLA provides examples of possible measures for more effective control of the dog:
Confining the dog to its owner’s property
Restraining the dog by means of a leash
Restraining the dog by means of a muzzle
Posting warning signs
In exercising its jurisdiction to make an order under s. 4(3), the court may take into consideration the following circumstances:
The dog’s past and present temperament and behaviour
The seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack
Unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog’s action
The improbability that a similar attack will be repeated
The dog’s physical potential for inflicting harm
Precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future
Any other circumstances that the court considers to be relevant
I have considered the circumstances under s. 4(3) and am satisfied that Joah has not had any reported incidents of biting or attacking since October 6, 2023; the injury sustained by Mr. Herriott although painful and required medical attention, is not of a nature that requires long lasting medical treatment or intervention. I am further satisfied that Ms. Matthews has taken her dog Joah to a dog trainer multiple times in the past and is knowledgeable of the tools for behaviour management. While I do not find there were any unusual circumstances that existed before or during the biting incident, as there was no identifiable provocation or trigger, the dog’s sheer size and history of aggression raise concern for the potential for inflicting harm.
Having found that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, this court orders that Ms. Matthews take measures for the more effective control of the dog, Joah.
I will hear submissions from both parties on penalty for the offence under s 5.1 of DOLA and for measures for more effective control of the dog under s. 4 DOLA.
Thank you to all parties.
Released: March 12, 2026
Justice of Peace. S. St. Peter
Footnotes
- Driedger, Elmer, Construction of Statues, 2nd Edition, 1983,
- Oxford Language Dictionary, 2026, Oxford University Press
- Martin v Hurst, 2023 ONSC 2606 Divisional Court at para 29 and 33.