Saskatchewan court rules on ‘custody’ dispute over dog following breakup

(File photo)

Typically, a custody battle is reserved for familial disputes, but a furry friend recently became the subject of a decision in Saskatchewan provincial court.

According to a decision handed down May 1, “Charlie,” a Pug/Boston Terrier cross, was purchased jointly by a Regina couple for $800 in 2017. The two were in a common law relationship at the time and split the cost of the pet.

There was some dispute in court over how that transaction took place. The plaintiff, who was seeking either the dog or $400 to cover his side of the purchase, presented a ‘documentation package’ that recorded the buyers’ names in handwriting, listing both. But the defendant filed a different version of the document, listing only her name and signature.

“I am satisfied, as [the plaintiff] has conceded in direct-examination, that he had doctored the original contract by adding his name and signature well after the dog was purchased, and that he did so in an effort to try to convince this court that the contract would prove that each of them were joint purchasers,” the decision said.

“This manipulation of the document was unnecessary.”

• Download the CTV News app to get breaking news alerts sent to your device

The judge factored the doctored document as eroding the credibility of the plaintiff when it came to other evidence presented in the case, along with finding the plaintiff “not completely frank and forthright in the answers he gave to some of the questions posed.”

Initially following their split in 2021, the pair entered into a written agreement to “alternate having possession of Charlie” for a six-week trial period. The plaintiff said the signing was voluntary, while the defendant said the other would refuse to allow her to visit or have occasional possession of the dog if she didn’t sign, a version of events corroborated by her brother.

“In addition, both of them asserted, and the plaintiff conceded, that he had occasion to become violent and lose his temper, and this type of behaviour is, in my view, consistent with the defendant and her brother’s recollection of the events on that day,” the decision said.

“Simply put, I do believe that his proclivity to violent outbursts and physical behavior lends credence to the suggestion that he might also be the type of person who may threaten access to the animal.”

The agreement held until 2024, when the defendant told the plaintiff she would no longer be bound by the agreement given a series of personal struggles the plaintiff was dealing with at the time.

“She further noted that she was concerned that the plaintiff was vehemently against vaccinations for the dog,” the decision said.

The judge said none of the concerns besides the vaccination issue, which the defendant is “adamantly opposed to”, made the plaintiff any less entitled to ownership and possession of the dog.

“Were he granted exclusive possession and ownership of Charlie and followed through with his anti-vaccine approach to Charlie’s care, this nonfeasance/misfeasance could cause illness or death not only to Charlie, but to animals and humans which come into contact with him,” the judge said.

Despite the plaintiff’s wishes against the vaccines, the dog was vaccinated for rabies, Bordetella and Distemper, Adenovirus, Parainfluenza, and Parvovirus (DAPP).

The plaintiff’s counsel advised the judge the plaintiff would abide by a court order to keep Charlie’s vaccines up to date, but the judge was not prepared to issue an order that could not be enforced.

In the decision, the judge acknowledged that while the courts “fully understand and appreciate the extreme affection that dog owners have for their pets”, but went on to clarify that “a dog is a dog,” and is considered property under the law. As such, it does not get familial rights, despite the fact that many dogs are treated like family members.

“Any application of principles that the court might normally apply to the determination of custody of children are completely inapplicable to the disposition of a pet as family property,” the judge said.

“Any temptation to draw parallels between the court’s approach in this case to the principles applied to settle child custody disputes must be rejected.”

After all was considered, the judge ruled in favour of the defendant on possession of the dog, but did order the return of the $400 the plaintiff originally paid for the dog.

The judge refused to award other costs, saying the defendant was “ready, willing and able” to pay the $400, but was refused by the plaintiff.

“Had he done so, this action and the time and energy needed to prosecute it would not have been incurred,” the judge said.

The defendant must pay the sum on or before June 13 or revert possession of Charlie to the plaintiff.