After couple splits, court orders their two dogs must split as well

Woman takes off with both animals, but Nova Scotia court orders her to return one

A woman who took off with two dogs she had shared with her exboyfriend has been ordered to return one of the pooches after a bitter ownership dispute.

Matthew MacDonald told a Nova Scotia small claims court that he purchased the Yorkshire terriers while he was living with his “on-again, off-again” girlfriend Brittany Pearl in Fort McMurray in 2011, a judgment from the court said.

Pearl had moved from Nova Scotia to be with MacDonald, she testified, and the couple discussed getting a dog to make her feel more at home.

MacDonald testified he had only intended to get one dog from the breeder, but when he found out the last of the litter would be left alone, he decided to bring home two.

The pups were named Henry and Daniel in honour of MacDonald’s twin hockey heroes, Henrik and Daniel Sedin of the Vancouver Canucks, according to his testimony.

MacDonald told the court he had the dogs when the couple split for good last year after returning to Nova Scotia, but he had allowed Pearl to take them out during a visit last November.

“What she did instead was drive to Alberta, where she now lives with her father and the dogs,” adjudicator Augustus Richardson wrote in the decision. “MacDonald was outraged when he found out.”

One expletive-laden text message exchanged between the couple was entered as evidence in the small claims trial.

Richardson wrote that people in a common-law relationship may view their pets as “akin to children,” but determined that ordering any kind of access to the pets was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

He ordered Pearl to return one of the dogs to MacDonald, but he allowed her to keep the other dog.

“People living in a loving (even if rocky) common law relationship rarely structure their actions in contractual form,” Richardson wrote.

“I am satisfied that in April 2011 they had the best interests of the other in their hearts and, that being so, would have wanted the best for each other.”

People living in a loving (even if rocky) common law relationship rarely structure their actions in contractual form.