Family fight over beloved dog leads to legal custody battle | Daily Hive

Saley Yanny/Shutterstock

A BC woman who shared ownership of a dog with a family member filed a small claim with the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal stating that a verbal agreement to share access to the pet had been broken.

At the time that the dog was purchased, the applicant, Debbie Chartrand and the respondent, Danielle Chartrand, were living in the same house.

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal noted that, in some of her submissions, Debbie referred to the pet as “my dog” and in others as the “family dog.” She also stated a claimed value of $3,500, though they made it clear that they were seeking the dog rather than the money.

Aleksey Boyko/Shutterstock

You might also like:

Tribunal Member David Jiang’s work to establish ownership of the dog began back when it was purchased by Danielle in 2012.

“The respondent purchased the dog from a third party for $375,” wrote Jiang. “This is documented in emails dated January 25, 2021, between the respondent and the third-party seller.

“It is undisputed that the applicant did not choose the dog or contribute any funds for purchasing the dog.”

Both Debbie and Danielle offer differing versions of what happened next. Debbie claimed that when Danielle moved out in 2016, she left the dog with her.

Debbie would live with the dog for the next few years until 2021, when the family members entered into a verbal agreement stating they would share custody of the dog for two weeks at a time. However, when she dropped off the dog in November 2023 and advised Danielle two weeks later that they would be in Mexico for Christmas, this upset her family member, who kept the dog and breached the contract.

The respondent has a different version of what happened, stating that she moved out in June 2018 and kept her dog with her. In September of that year, when she moved again, she let the dog have sleepovers at Debbie’s residence.

gostuagostua/ Shutterstock

While she agreed to let Debbie have time with the dog on a temporary basis, she stopped providing access because some of the applicant’s actions caused past trauma to resurface.

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal reviewed supporting letters from both parties supporting their side of the story, including ones from family members identified as D.C. and C.L.

“Overall, I find the weight of the evidence supports the applicant’s version of events. I put particular weight on the evidence of D.C. and C.L. I find that they would be most likely to know about the true circumstances of the parties,” Jiang wrote. “That said, I find it likely that the respondent moved out in 2018 and not 2016, as this best reconciles the parties’ evidence.

“I put no significance on whether the respondent stopped contacting the applicant because of the Mexico trip or some other reason. I find the reason is largely irrelevant to this dispute.”

What was more relevant to the decision was the fact that pets are legally considered personal property.

“The evidence shows the respondent bought and selected the dog. Numerous receipts and invoices from Dec. 11, 2012, to Aug. 12, 2024, show that the respondent continued to pay for veterinary and other pet-related expenses. These expenses were considerable and exceeded the dog’s original purchase price.

“I accept that the respondent left the dog with the applicant for several years. However, as the respondent continued to pay veterinary and other expenses, I find this does not mean the respondent gave away or abandoned the dog.”

TamaraLSanchez/Shutterstock

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision also noted that there was no documentary evidence showing that the family members intended to enter into a binding agreement about the dog.

“While verbal agreements are binding, they are more difficult to prove, and the applicant bears the burden of proof.”

While the Tribunal Member admitted that it was a difficult situation, the respondent did own the dog and was free to keep them away from the applicant. The claim was dismissed.