This is a motion regarding ownership of a ten-year-old Yorkshire Terrier named Meg, at dispute after a relationship breakdown between the two parties who were married. The wife is seeking a declaration that she owns Meg, and for an order requiring the husband to immediately return Meg to her. In the alternative, she seeks an order that she have possession of Meg until further agreement of the parties or court order or that on a temporary basis, the parties share possession of Meg on an alternating week basis, with the exchange to take place on Mondays in conjunction with the parenting schedule with their daughter. The husband is seeking the same relief for himself.
In submissions, the wife claimed that the husband had purchased Meg for her as a gift, while the husband claims that he had wanted a dog for a long time, and that he managed the negotiations with the breeder, chose Meg from the litter, and paid for her therefore, he owns Meg. He acknowledges that the wife loves the dog but claims that her love for Meg is not connected to ownership. They have a nine-year-old daughter who resides equally between the two parties, and it was decided after they separated that it was in the best interests of their daughter to spend as much time as possible with the dog, so they agreed to share possession of Meg on an alternate week basis so that she spent the weekends with their daughter. After an attempt at reconciliation, the parties separated again and resumed sharing care of Meg until October 2023, when Meg was left in the exclusive care of the wife while the husband travelled and then moved residences. The husband did not retrieve Meg until the end of October, and on November 20, 2023, he advised the wife that he would not be returning Meg to her, which the wife states was a unilateral decision and made without notice to her. The husband has had Meg exclusively since then.
While acknowledging that “there may be a temptation to determine what party would be best able to look after a household pet, given that people who have pets generally think of them as family members, the developed law is that a dog is to be treated as property” (para. 28), the Court followed the factors set out in Coates v Dickinson, including who purchased, raised and cared for the animal as well as what happened to the animal after the relationship changed (para. 31). Given that there was conflicting evidence regarding which party provided primary care for Meg, there was no explanation from the husband as to why he denied the wife any time with or access to the dog since November 2023, despite her numerous attempts to come to some agreement around time-sharing, which left the Court concerned that further conflict would arise between the parties that would not be in their daughter’s best interests if ownership was not determined. There was also evidence that the husband had been taking steps to undermine the wife’s claim to ownership, even with her submission of many documents attesting to it (paras. 40-44).
The Court determined that based on the evidence provided, Meg’s ownership belonged with the wife.