GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBOURS – A SERIES ON NEIGHBOURHOOD DISPUTES VOLUME 2

As you may recall, when we left off with the Hatfields and the McCoys they were in the middle of a dispute regarding Mr. Hatfield’s maple tree. A portion of the canopy from Mr. Hatfield’s tree had grown over the McCoy’s property line, and, after a food fight broke out at the Hatfield/McCoy picnic, Mr. McCoy proceeded to cut down the portion of the maple which intruded into his backyard. Mr. McCoy’s decision to cut away at the canopy of the maple tree resulted in a heated shouting match between the neighbours, a shouting match which was ultimately resolved by a third neighbour (and lawyer) Mr. Van Sickle.

 Only moments after Mr. Van Sickle settled his neighbours’ dispute, Mr. McCoy, out of nowhere, was bitten by a dog. The dog who bit Mr. McCoy was no stranger to the neighbourhood. The dog’s name was Milo, and his previous owner was the late Mr. Wilson (the owner of the McCoy property before he passed away).

 After Mr. Wilson passed, Milo was to be sent to live with a family member in Nova Scotia. Apparently, Milo didn’t like the prospect of living on the east coast, because shortly after Mr. Wilson died, Milo ran away.

 From time to time Milo would return to his old neighbourhood. He liked the Hatfields. Most Saturdays Milo would wander into the Hatfield’s backyard and help himself to whatever the Hatfields were having for their weekly BBQ. Mr. and Ms. Hatfield’s son, Ronald, was especially fond of Milo. Unfortunately, because Ms. Hatfield was allergic to dogs, Ronald couldn’t adopt Milo. Recently, Ronald was in the habit of leaving food and water out for Milo in his backyard  every so often, and he would occasionally play with him.

 Immediately after being bitten by Milo, Ms. McCoy rushed Mr. McCoy to the hospital. As it turned out Mr. McCoy only needed 2 stitches. As soon as he got home from the hospital Mr. McCoy stormed over to the Hatfield residence.

 “I am going to sue you for all you're worth Hatfield. Look at my leg. Look at what your stupid dog did to me”.

 “Milo isn’t my dog”, shouted Mr. Hatfield, "he was Mr. Wilson’s dog. He only wanders into our yard every now and then. Besides, neither I nor Ms. Hatfield ever give him any attention. Ronald is the one who feeds him.”

 Mr. McCoy then espoused his legal knowledge. “While I was at the hospital I called my friend. He watches a lot of Judge Judy. He told me that you are liable for the dog because you let it come onto your property. He also told me that I am entitled to at least $200,000.00 for my pain and suffering.

 “First”, replied Mr. Hatfield, “if anyone owned Milo it would be Ronald, and you know as well as I do that you can’t sue a minor! Second, there is no way that dog bite is worth $200,000.00”.

 “How dare you belittle my injury Hatfield! You know as well as I do that that a person in the United States got over a million dollars for getting a burned lip while drinking coffee. My injury is at least as bad as that! Also, it doesn’t matter if I can’t sue Ronald, as a parent you are automatically liable for anything he does. Everyone knows that!”

 Suddenly Mr. Van Sickle appeared. He had been walking home from playing tennis when he saw the two neighbours arguing on Mr. Hatfield’s front lawn.

 “Are you two seriously in the middle of another legal dispute? It has only been 2 hours since your last argument!”

 Mr. Van Sickle then proceeded to set the neighbours straight.

 “First of all, Mr. Hatfield, your son can be sued. You may not hear about minors his age being sued a lot, but that is because, typically, they do not have enough money to pay any meaningful amount of compensation. On the other hand, Mr. McCoy, although parents can be liable for the conduct of their children in certain circumstances, they are not automatically liable for their actions. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Hatfield, in cases of dog bites, a parent will be liable for the actions of his/her child’s dog. You see, a little while back the Ontario legislature decided to regulate dog bite cases by creating the Dog Owner’s Liability Act (the “DOLA”). Under the DOLA a dog owner is liable when his dog, or his minor child’s dog bite someone.

 “But my son doesn’t own Milo”, quipped Mr. Hatfield. “He is a free range dog”.

 “Well, that is where this gets tricky”, replied Mr. Van Sickle. You see, an owner is defined under the DOLA as someone who possess or harbours a dog. On the face of this case it simply isn’t clear whether or not Ronald was “harbouring” Milo pursuant to the DOLA.”

 “See Hatfield”, shouted McCoy, “you are liable so pay up!”

 “Not so fast Mr. McCoy. Even if Mr. Hatfield is liable for the dog bite, which is not clear in this case, there is no way a judge is going to award you $200,000.00 in damages for pain and suffering. You may think that people get awards in the hundreds of thousands of  dollars for minor injuries like yours, but that simply isn’t the true. This is not the United States. You only got two stitches. You need to reduce your number by about 2 zeros.”

“Well I don’t like this one bit”, cried Mr. Hatfield.

 “Neither do I”, shouted Mr. McCoy.

 Suddenly, Ms. Hatfield arrived home from grocery shopping, and proceeded to park her car on what she thought was the Hatfield’s driveway.

 “You can’t park your car there. You are halfway on my property” declared Mr. McCoy.

 If you have any questions relating to any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact Dennis Van Sickle at dvansickle@kmblaw.com  or (905) 276-0413.