This is a civil dispute where the plaintiff Ms. Rose filed a statement of claim seeking compensation for the removal of her cat Jack Rose from her property without consent.
The facts indicate that the defendants took Jack Rose without consent while Ms. Rose was living with the defendants’ son and brother-in-law Dylan Wells, then gave the cat to a shelter or sold him. They claim Jack Rose was not being properly cared for and had gotten permission from Mr. Wells to remove Jack Rose and do with him what they what they deemed appropriate. The defendants claim that the shelter is out of business and that they do not know where Jack Rose is but have received messages that he is doing well (para. 4).
The issue before the court was whether the defendants must compensate Ms. Rose for the theft of her cat. The court determined that Mr. Wells had no proprietary interest in Jack Rose and therefore was unable to authorize his removal. The plaintiff must be compensated for the costs of purchasing Jack Rose because she alone bought Jack Rose from the breeder.
From a legal perspective, animals are considered property, therefore costs are determined by the value of the pet in accordance to their market price, regardless of emotional attachment for the animal (para. 7-8). The court ordered the defendants pay a total of $1,428.00 which includes the purchase price of Jack Rose from a breeder, the cost of filing the statement of claim, the service fee, and the costs for disputing the claim.
https://canlii.ca/t/k32d9