Potentially dangerous dogs

On May 15, 2024, the Québec Superior Court handed down a decision that could have significant financial consequences for municipalities that fail to enforce regulations concerning potentially dangerous dogs [1].

In 2019, the plaintiff in this case, Ms. Alain, was savagely attacked by three dogs belonging to the defendant, Mr. Barnes.

The plaintiff and her husband sued the owner of the dogs as well as the Municipality of Potton and the landlord of the premises inhabited by Barnes and his dogs.

In the legal proceedings, Barnes did not respond to the summons and or proffer a defense. As owner of the dogs, he is presumed liable for damage caused by them [2].

As regards the Municipality’s liability, the judge emphasized that conduct is considered wrongful when it deviates from the standard of behaviour that an ordinarily prudent and diligent municipality would adopt in similar circumstances. In particular, this principle applies where a municipality tolerates dangerous situations over which it has some control or fails to take reasonable or appropriate measures or precautions to avert the danger.

The judge also noted that although a municipality has discretion in applying its bylaws and cannot be compelled to enforce them, the fact remains that its refusal to do so may, in certain circumstances, constitute a civil fault obliging it to compensate for the direct and immediate damages arising from that refusal.

In the judge’s opinion, the Municipality of Potton was liable for such damage as the evidence showed that, through its employees and elected officials, the Municipality had knowledge of previous incidents involving Barnes’ dogs.

The judge held that those incidents clearly showed that Barnes had aggressive and dangerous dogs, and that the Municipality had a duty to take action and, at the very least, have the dogs undergo a behavioural assessment.

As the judge stated: [translation:] “this manner of considering and applying its by-law on dogs to the four incidents noted above is, according to the evidence, part of a general pattern of inaction, if not an almost total lack of concern regarding the issue, by Potton. He held that the Municipality did not attach much importance or seriousness to the issue of dog control in its territory, including the safety of residents and other persons.

The judge also held that it was highly probable that, had it not been for Potton’s negligence and failure to take appropriate measures to curb the threat of attack, the savage mauling of Ms. Alain would not have occurred.

Conversely, the Court did not find Barnes’ landlord liable, since it had not been shown that his representative was aware that dogs were aggressive and dangerous.

The damages awarded to the plaintiff and her husband for the various losses suffered totaled over $530,000. It should be noted that Barnes and the Municipality of Potton were held severally liable, allowing the plaintiffs to claim payment from either party.

The decision highlights how important it is for municipalities to take reports of incidents involving potentially dangerous dogs seriously, whether they involve aggressive behavior or actual attacks on a person or dog

It should also be noted that in 2018, the legislator enacted an Act to promote the protection of persons by establishing a framework with regard to dogs [3] and, in 2019, the implementing regulation [4] in 2019.

As its title indicates, the purpose of the Act and the regulations enacted thereunder is to promote the protection of persons [5]. Section 5 of the Act states that every local municipality is responsible for applying, in its territory, any regulation made under the Act [5].

Section 7 also states that any municipal by-law containing a less strict standard than one prescribed by a regulation under the Act is deemed amended and replaced by the relevant section of the regulation.

As a result, all Quebec municipalities have the power to require that the owner or custodian of a dog have it examined by a veterinary surgeon to assess its condition and dangerousness [6]. If necessary, the municipality can impose appropriate measures, up to and including euthanasia [7].

In light of this Superior Court decision, it is important that municipalities take their duties seriously to avoid incurring civil liability. Considering the potentially extremely serious consequences of a dog attack, a municipality cannot be content to do nothing when a potentially dangerous situation has been brought to its attention.

N.B. It should be noted that at the time of writing, the time limits for appealing the Superior Court decision had not yet expired.

This article was originally published in the April 2024 legal column of the journal of the Association des directeurs généraux des municipalités du Québec (ADGMQ).