Legal tussle over custody of dogs dismissed
HALIFAX — A woman seeking joint custody of the two border collies she once shared with a partner has lost her case at Nova Scotia small claims court.
Kaylea Millett took Téa Boudreau to court seeking joint custody of the hounds named Axle and Theo, or possession of one of the two dogs.
“Ms. Millett’s claim follows the breakdown of a romantic relationship and cohabitation with Ms. Boudreau that terminated on or around Oct. 8, 2023,” Sarah A. Shiels, the adjudicator, said in a written decision released Friday.
“The parties cohabited from around April 2018 and were mutually engaged in the care of the dogs while they were living together.”
‘REFUSED TO RETURN THEM’
Boudreau took the dogs with her when she moved out of their shared home “and subsequently refused to return them” to Millett, Shiels said.
“Ms. Millett alleged that, by doing this, Ms. Boudreau was violating the terms of the parties’ verbal agreement to share ‘joint custody’ and maintain a ‘one week on and one week off’ arrangement with respect to the dogs.”
Boudreau defended that claim.
“She stated that she was not in a romantic relationship with Ms. Millett at the time when the dogs were purchased and that she had not agreed to share or separate the dogs,” said the adjudicator. “She asserted that the dogs were hers alone and that she purchased the dogs because she wanted them.”
Millett admitted that Boudreau “originally acquired the oldest dog, Axle, before the parties moved in together,” Shiels said.
‘EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTIES’
Millett testified that Boudreau “brought up the idea of getting another dog at a time when the parties were experiencing difficulties in their relationship,” said the adjudicator.
She recalled asking Boudreau: “Can we fix our problems if we’re going to get another dog?”
It wasn’t clear whether the relationship improved before Theo was acquired, according to Shiels.
“At the hearing, Ms. Boudreau testified that much of the relationship was unhealthy. The parties were not consistently in an intimate partner relationship while they were living together. Ms. Boudreau described the parties as ‘separated’ at the time when Theo was purchased.”
WHO PAID FOR THEO?
Boudreau “made arrangements with the breeder and paid for Theo,” said the adjudicator, noting Millett accompanied her to pick up the dog around November 2021.
Millett testified that she subsequently paid half of Boudreau’s rent to cover her contribution toward the cost of purchasing Theo.
“This assertion was disputed by Ms. Boudreau, who denied that Ms. Millett paid anything for Theo,” said the adjudicator.
“Ms. Millett clarified that she didn’t pay for half of the rent precisely when Theo was acquired, but that she did pay an extra $400 that same month. She testified she would have to look for the remaining $100.”
It wasn’t evident that Boudreau accepted Millett’s contribution to their shared living expenses as a payment for Theo, Sheils said.
‘INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE’
“The court notes that Ms. Boudreau testified that she spent a lot of money helping Ms. Millett to get out of debt. In the absence of a more detailed accounting of the parties’ relative contributions toward shared living expenses during the period of cohabitation, there is insufficient evidence to support Ms. Millett’s
nd claim that she shared the cost of purchasing Theo.”
Millett helped take care of Theo and Axle while the women lived together. But Boudreau “paid the majority of the dogs’ expenses,” said the adjudicator.
Shiels found “that any evidence of joint ownership was limited and insubstantial. The fact that both parties’ names were on the veterinary bills is suggestive of co-ownership but is not determinative. A partner or spouse may be added to a veterinary account for any number of reasons unrelated to ownership.”
Boudreau acquired Axle independently of Millett, Shiels said.
‘STRONGER RIGHT’
“With respect to Theo, Ms. Boudreau took the initiative to make arrangements with the breeder and paid the purchase price. Ms. Boudreau decided to acquire both pets and she carried most of the financial burden of the animals’ upkeep. She did not expressly make a gift of either dog to Ms. Millett, and there was no evidence of an implied gift. The court finds that Ms. Boudreau has the stronger right of ownership with respect to both dogs.”
Millett “did not recall any agreement to share the dogs,” said the adjudicator. “Rather, she informed Ms. Millett that she was ‘able to see them.’”
Shiels didn’t buy the argument that Millett and Boudreau had “reached any binding agreement regarding shared access to Axle and Theo.”
Millett “had an expectation that she would have access to the dogs, but the precise terms of any supposed or anticipated access arrangements are too vague to be enforceable,” said the adjudicator.
‘NO OBLIGATION TO SHARE’
“The court interprets Ms. Boudreau’s statement to Ms. Millett that she could see the dogs after the parties separated as not intended to be legally binding. Given the court’s finding that the dogs belong to Ms. Boudreau, Ms. Boudreau had no obligation to share possession of Axle or Theo with Ms. Millett absent an express or implied agreement.”
Millett tried using “photos and text messages demonstrating that she had a positive and caring relationship with Axle and Theo” to bolster her case.
“The texts associated with Ms. Millett’s photos often used possessive pronouns including ‘our,’ ‘ours’ and ‘my’ in reference to the dogs,” Shiels said.
‘DEEP AFFECTION’
“Ms. Millett clearly maintains a deep affection for the two dogs and presently has the financial means and ability to care for Axle and Theo.”
While she "had a significant role caring for Axle and Theo” while cohabitating with Boudreau, Millett “has not established on a balance of probabilities that she has an ownership interest in either of the two dogs. Moreover, she has not established that she has any right to access Axle or Theo on the basis of an agreement with Ms. Boudreau,” said the adjudicator, who dismissed her claim.