A recent B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision offers a cautionary warning to couples who share pets during a relationship - even after they break up.

In the ruling, a woman was ordered to return a dog to her ex after a complicated arrangement went sour.

The dispute centred around a dog named Bentley, who was shared by a B.C. couple who were in a romantic relationship.

That relationship ended, but the two people continued to share Bentley for eight years after the breakup. (Black Press Media isn害羞草研究所檛 identifying the two humans as the story is more about the lessons that can be learned from it.)

害羞草研究所淭he parties say they both paid for Bentley害羞草研究所檚 initial acquisition cost, and after they broke up, they shared custody of Bentley with each party taking the dog for three weeks at a time before handing him over to the other,害羞草研究所� reads the CRT ruling.

This included both people sharing expenses in regards to Bentley.

That arrangement seemed to work for eight years until the woman cut off access to the man, saying she 害羞草研究所渘o longer felt comfortable害羞草研究所� with him having access to Bentley.

The exact reason isn害羞草研究所檛 given, but the woman texted the man to say she has 害羞草研究所渄iscovered some pretty upsetting things害羞草研究所� about the man, according to the ruling.

In July 2022, the man went to pick up Bentley as per the schedule 害羞草研究所� along with the police to supervise 害羞草研究所� but she refused to give up the dog. The man hadn害羞草研究所檛 seen the dog for about 10 months when the case was heard by the CRT.

The man was asking to get access to Bentley or be compensated with $5,000.

害羞草研究所淎t law, pets are considered personal property,害羞草研究所� reads the ruling. 害羞草研究所淭his can become complicated when personal relationships break down because people do not want their pets treated like other personal property that can be divided or sold to share the proceeds 害羞草研究所� I acknowledge it can be difficult to determine who has the greater claim to a pet害羞草研究所檚 ownership and possession.害羞草研究所�

Some issues to be considered, according to the ruling, include who bought the pet, did one person own the pet at the start of the relationship and who took the most care of the dog 害羞草研究所� including exercise. This was complicated because they shared most everything equally with Bentley and the CRT said in its ruling that 害羞草研究所渃learly, a dog cannot be divided.害羞草研究所�

The man argued in the hearing that 害羞草研究所淏entley has always had a strong connection with him.害羞草研究所� The woman also didn害羞草研究所檛 detail specific reasons why she was no longer comfortable with the man having access to Bentley, so the adjudicator dismissed that.

The ruling said that the woman unilaterally cutting off access 害羞草研究所渄isplays a lack of ability to put Bentley害羞草研究所檚 best interests above her own personal interests.害羞草研究所�

And so, the woman was ordered to return Bentley within 21 days of the decision, plus reimburse the ex for the tribunal fees.

READ MORE:

Do you have a story tip? Email: chris.campbell@blackpress.ca.

Follow us on and and like us on