A Saskatchewan judge has ruled who should get the family dog after a
couple split up — but he also says he doesn't want to see any more court
fights over furry friends.
Earlier this month, Justice Ted Zarzeczny
ruled that a Moose Jaw woman should be awarded the chocolate Labrador
retriever that was previously the joint property of her and her spouse.
The middle-aged couple split up last year and went through a lengthy
process of dividing their property.
Everything was eventually settled out of court, except for one item —
the dog.
For a while, the ex-couple tried joint custody, with the dog
alternating weeks spent with each of its masters.
But, the decision noted, there was a "high degree of animosity"
between the two — on one occasion when the dog was being handed off, the
police had to be called.
Finally, the two sides hired lawyers and a trial was held in Moose
Jaw Court of Queen's Bench on Dec. 7.
Court heard the man liked to go on runs with the dog, while the woman
played Frisbee with it.
'It is an unacceptable waste of these parties’ financial
resources, the time and abilities of their two very experienced and
capable legal counsel and most importantly the public resource of
this court.'—Justice Ted Zarzeczny
In a four-page written decision that was recently published on the
Law Society website, Zarzeczny ruled the dog's companionship was more
important to the woman and she should get ownership.
He said she would have to pay her ex-spouse half of the dog's
purchase price: $350.
The judge also expressed disapproval that the case had ever made it
to court in the first place, saying it was "demeaning" for the court and
lawyers.
"It is an unacceptable waste of these parties’ financial resources,
the time and abilities of their two very experienced and capable legal
counsel and most importantly the public resource of this court,"
Zarzeczny said in the ruling.
He noted the one-day trial included three witnesses, including an
expert called by one of the parties.
"A dog is a dog" and such a dispute should never be treated the same
way as a child custody matter, Zarzeczny said.
He also said he didn't want his ruling to give anybody else the idea
that taking their pet disputes to court was a good idea.