When couples split up, who gets the family pooch is more about money than love, according to a civil resolution tribunal out of British Columbia.
uncertain
gets → split → Columbia
The tribunal heard the case of former romantic partners Misty Donovan and Makenzie Jade Murray who ended their two-year relationship in April 2024.
asserted
who → hear → April
The two women shared their dog, Walter, for another 10 months while living apart.
asserted
women → share → months
Then in February 2025, Murray kept Walter and refused to bring him to Donovan’s home, where he’d been spending weekends.
asserted
he → keep → weekends
Donovan asked the tribunal for an order requiring Murray to return Walter, who appears to be a Boston Terrier in their social media photos of him.
asserted
who → ask → him
“While she claims $2,500, it is clear Ms. Donovan wants the dog, not monetary compensation,” said tribunal member Alissa Reynolds in the Sept. 23 decision that declares a dog, though loved like a child, is not in fact a child.
uncertain
dog → claim → fact
The tribunal’s task was not to award custody, Reynolds said, but to divide property, albeit nothing like a sofa or an espresso maker.
asserted
Reynolds → award → sofa
“The courts have recognized that animals are a unique form of personal property because they are living creatures and not inanimate objects,” she wrote in the decision.
asserted
she → recognize → decision
“This means when pet-owners separate and there is a dispute about the pet, the question is who owns the pet rather than who should have ‘custody’ of it.”
asserted
who → mean → it
Relevant factors to consider, Reynolds said, include “who bought and selected the pet, who attended its veterinary appointments, who paid for the pet’s needs, who licensed it, and how the parties viewed ownership.”
asserted
parties → consider → ownership
Murray chose Walter, noted the adjudicator.
asserted
adjudicator → choose → Walter
“She provided her messages to the breeder that show this.
asserted
that → provide → this
She says Ms. Donovan was not involved in selecting Walter, and Ms. Donovan did not deny that.
asserted
Donovan → say → that
So, I find this factor favours Ms. Murray.”
asserted
factor → find → Murray
But Reynolds found that Donovan purchased the dog for $2,000, noting she “provided bank statements and e-transfer details that show she paid the breeder.”
That favours Donovan, said the adjudicator.
asserted
adjudicator → find → Donovan
Text messages and veterinarian records show that before Murray refused Donovan access to Walter, both women “attended Walter’s vet appointments, together and individually,” said the decision.
asserted
decision → show → appointments
“However, Ms. Donovan says she was the one who remembered to book Walter’s regular checkups and follow-ups and advised Ms. Murray when they were.
asserted
they → say → Murray
Ms. Murray does not deny that.”
asserted
Murray → deny → that
The evidence shows that Donovan attended more of Walter’s appointments without Murray, and that Murray only took Walter on one emergency vet visit this past February when she was caring for the dog.
asserted
she → show → dog
“However, Ms. Donovan attended all the follow-up visits.
asserted
Donovan → attend → visits
For that reason, I find this factor favours Ms. Donovan slightly,” Reynolds said.
asserted
Reynolds → find → Donovan
Both women “claimed that they paid for the majority of Walter’s needs,” said the decision.
asserted
decision → claim → needs
“This is complicated by the fact that Ms. Murray had three other pets and often paid for their food and other supplies together.”
asserted
Murray → complicate → food
But after reviewing all the financial information both women provided, Reynolds said it shows that Donovan “paid nearly three times as much” as Murray for Walter’s vet bills, pet food and supplies.
asserted
Donovan → review → bills
“I find this factor heavily favours Ms. Donovan.”
asserted
factor → find → Donovan
Murray testified that her “messages with the breeder show the parties always intended that she would own Walter,” said the decision.
asserted
decision → testify → Walter
“She relies on her first message that said, ‘I’m very interested in a puppy,’ and a later message when she said, ‘I have been hoping to find Pearl (another pet) a little friend.’
asserted
Pearl → rely → puppy
However, that same message thread shows she also referred to both parties adopting Walter, as follows: ‘We would like to proceed with adopting…,’ ‘A bit about us…,’ ‘We are going to be in Victoria…
asserted
We → show → Victoria
I was wondering if we could stop by quickly and meet Walter,’ and ‘Would we be able to come pick him up…we are so excited!’”
uncertain
we → wonder → him
Reynolds found that the messages show that Murray “intended that the parties would own Walter jointly.”
asserted
parties → find → Walter
That’s also supported by their “agreement to share Walter after they split up,” said the decision.
asserted
decision → support → Walter
Reynolds found both women “care about Walter, spend a lot of time enriching his life, and both are capable of taking care of his needs and health.
asserted
both → find → needs
So, I find this factor does not favour either party.”
asserted
factor → find → party
Reynolds concluded “that the balance of the factors favours Ms. Donovan.”
asserted
balance → conclude → Donovan
She ordered Murray to give Walter to Donovan within 30 days.
asserted
She → order → days
The Aporia
