| I don't think we have the luxury of choosing who's at fault. The law in Ontario, The Dog Owners' Liability Act, is pretty clear. To quote, "The owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal". It doesn't seem to differentiate between who started what and if the dog was loose or not. It does have a provision for holding the owner not liable if a person gets bitten while on the owner's premises for the purpose of committing a criminal act.
Animal Control, on the other hand, is responsible for charging people who have contravened municipal bylaws. This is where an owner is charged for having a loose dog. I think all loose dogs should be reported, those that are friendly and nice run the risk of being hit by a car or stolen and those that are not so nice present a danger to other people and animals.
In the case of the attack on Dresden, I have absolutely no recourse to have the owners charged under any municipal bylaw because the dogs that attacked her were leashed. The Animal Control Officer checked with the Municipal Lawyer for me to see what recourse I had, if any, because she'd never run into a case where leashed dogs, on the opposite side of the road, attacked another leashed dog. The lawyer said I do have an avenue for recouping my vet bills in small claims court under The Dog Owners' Liability Act.
So even though it'd be nice to be able to apportion blame, the laws are already there to do it for us. I'm sure they're not always fair either, but they're all we've got to work with.  |