The respondent was injured while walking the appellant’s dog when the dog suffered a seizure, escaped its collar, fell down an icy embankment, and bit her while she attempted to retrieve it.
The motion judge held that the respondent was not an “owner” under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act because she did not exercise “dominion and control” over the dog, and therefore allowed her statutory claim but dismissed her negligence claim.
The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in interpreting “possesses” in the Act: possession includes physical possession and control immediately before a bite or attack.
Because the respondent was exercising actual control over the dog just prior to the incident, she fell within the statutory definition of “owner,” barring her claim under the Act.
The negligence claim was also properly dismissed because the injury was not reasonably foreseeable and the respondent’s voluntary decision to descend the icy slope constituted an intervening act breaking the chain of causation.
