R v Pyle

R. v. Pyle

[2008] O.J. No. 5359
Ontario Court of Justice — G. Wakefield J. | September 23, 2008

Background

Andrew Pyle owned two huskies for two to six years respectively when he moved to Peterborough. Knowing these dogs were escape-prone by breed, he took possession of his new property two weeks early specifically to prepare proper containment. He hired a professional fencing contractor to build a 50 by 40 foot chain link enclosure at a cost of approximately $5,000. Pyle reinforced the perimeter with concrete, added extra clips to the gate, and personally inspected the entire compound. Despite all these precautions, the dogs managed to escape by forcing the gate open about ten inches at the bottom — the latch itself didn't fail, but the gate bent under pressure.

Pyle was charged under section 192.7.1(a) of the Peterborough Municipal Code for allowing dogs to run at large. At trial, the prosecutor actually applauded Pyle's "attempts at responsible dog ownership" and the Justice of the Peace acknowledged the "extensive efforts" and "significant costs" involved. However, the trial judge characterized the offence as absolute liability, meaning no defence was possible, and convicted Pyle with a fine of $250 per dog.

Issues

1. Was this a strict liability offence (allowing a due diligence defence) or absolute liability offence (no defence possible)?
2. If strict liability applied, did Pyle establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities?

The Due Diligence Defence

Both parties agreed on appeal that the trial judge erred by treating this as absolute liability. Municipal bylaw offences like "dog at large" are presumptively strict liability, meaning the defendant can avoid conviction by proving they took all reasonable care to prevent the offence.

Justice Wakefield applied the test from R. v. Sault Ste. Marie: did the defendant honestly believe, on reasonable grounds, in a state of facts that would have made his conduct innocent? The standard is reasonableness, not perfection. The Crown argued Pyle should have considered additional security measures like a "came bolt" for the gate, but the court rejected this hindsight analysis.

The judge found Pyle's efforts went well beyond what most dog owners do: hiring a professional contractor (the same one used successfully at a previous residence), giving specific instructions for a "secure fence," personally reinforcing the structure with concrete and extra clips, and conducting thorough inspections. The court noted this wasn't a case where the defendant simply hired someone and walked away — Pyle took numerous additional steps himself.

Key Takeaway

Due diligence doesn't require perfection — it requires acting as a reasonable person would in the circumstances.

Even when your best efforts fail, you can beat a strict liability charge by proving you took all reasonable steps to prevent the offence. Courts won't judge you by hindsight or demand you anticipate every possible failure mode.