One Dog, Two Lawyers

The Point

Having an emotional connection with the pet is not enough to establish ownership. 

A Dog and Two Lawyers

Two years ago, a decision came out that decided who got the dog in a separation. I find it interesting because of how the dispute started and that fact that there was only one dog but two people arguing over it. 

In a previous post, I wrote about a case that had two dogs in dispute during a separation, and each partner ended up receiving one dog each. The judge seemed to take a broad approach to deciding. There is also an intuitive dimension where it's easier to say, 'Keep one each and call it a day.'

But in the case I'm about to introduce, the dog could not be split two ways and it appears that the classic way of finding out who owns something was used by the judge to decide who got to keep the dog. The classic way is finding out who is the registered owner (or, who is on title). 

In this case, the dog was a Boxer named Layla. 

Photo credit: IslandHopper X

The Story

Two lawyers - Blake and Karen* - start a common law relationship. (*Some of the names have been changed.)

They decide to buy a rescue dog from the United States.

Karen basically tells Blake, 'Well, you'll have to walk it. My work schedule won’t allow me look after it as much as your schedule since you can work from home.’

Blake says, 'Yes, ok.'

They live together for a few years.

They come to love the dog.

Then Blake leaves Karen for Penelope (she was not a lawyer).

Blake takes the dog with him to live with Penelope.

Karen misses the dog Layla. Doesn't see the dog for seven months.

One day, Karen is walking on the street and sees Layla the Boxer being walked by a strange girl.

This stranger is Penelope. (You see where this is going.)

Karen is so happy to see Layla the Dog that she forgets herself and takes Layla down the street and gets into a car and speeds off.

Penelope reports to Blake the wild news.

Blake sues Karen and it goes to a 1-day trial.

During the lawsuit, Karen still has the dog.

The main question is, Who should keep the dog?

Photo credit: Darcy Lawrey

How Did the Judge Decide the Case? 

At the trial, Blake provided the following documents and other proofs to establish himself as the owner:

• adoption application
• adoption contract with his name as the only owner. Karen was with him when he adopted the dog, and still did not get her name listed as an owner. She could have insisted that she be listed as a co-owner
• Canada Border Services Agency records because the dog was purchased in New York
• Microchip records and database info
• Pet insurance statement
• Veterinarian bills

Blake was also able to show the judge that he paid most of the expenses. He kept his receipts and statements.

Although Karen loved the dog and helped out in caring for it, this was not enough to make her a co-owner.

When two people are in a committed relationship they speak and act in ways that show they are a team. But this is not enough to get ownership of personal property.

Karen asked the court to make an order that the two former partners share the dog in a shared schedule. The judge declined this for practicality reasons, as well as the decision that the Blake was the owner.

The judge ordered Karen to return the dog to Blake.

David Rappaport is a Toronto family law lawyer who worked on the Duboff v Simpson case. In a recent interview, he said, "Pet ownership cases are still very much an evolving area of the law. Dogs are treated as property, generally to be owned by one party to the exclusion of the other as opposed to a child under a parenting schedule. But judges have shown their willingness to consider the emotional connection between an owner and their pet in determining who should end up with their furry companion."

Takeaways

1. The classic way of knowing who the owner is (who has title) seemed to be what decided this case. Although the judge said that both lines of reasoning supported the guy in this case - title and a broad set of factors - the adoption contract that named only the guy as owner won the day for him. 
2. Having an emotional connection with the pet is not enough to establish ownership. 
3. Ex-girlfriend living too close to new girlfriend is risky.

Photo credit: Chris Shafer

Resources

Duboff v Simpson, 2021 ONSC 4970

Find a divorce & family law lawyer to discuss this topic

Stratford (Perth County) Courthouse

London (Middlesex) Courthouse

St. Thomas (Elgin) Courthouse

Sarnia (Lambton) Courthouse

Woodstock (Oxford) Courthouse