Tuxedo Part III: The Slamming Door

I have twice written about the case of Tuxedo the dog.  Here is the end of the trilogy.

For those that don’t remember or didn’t read the columns, Chris and Allison were fighting for “custody” of Tux.  Allison had bought Tux and Chris wanted an Order for “shared joint custody” of Tux.  They were in Family Court last year and the judge tossed the case, partly because he felt that the case did not warrant the court’s time for a trial.  I agreed with the Judge. 

After the first column, Chris’ lawyer called me.  He was perturbed.  Among other things, he thought I was insensitive about the emotional attachments that people have with their pets. 

I wrote another column after learning that the case was being appealed.  Twenty years ago, the Court of Appeal heard a similar case, an appeal from the same judge.  The Court of Appeal said then that the case was “silly”, a “joke” and “We’ve got more important things to worry about in this court.” 

I wrote back in March that “Chris had better hope that things have changed a lot in twenty years.”

They haven’t.

On August 30, the Court of Appeal dismissed Chris’ appeal.  The court said that the case was a waste of the Family Court’s time.

My job, as a lawyer, is to give legal advice, based on the law as I know it.  If the law is not sensitive to people’s attachment to their pets, then I can’t be either in my analysis of the case. 

In the eyes of the law, animals are personal property, like your stereo, sofa and car.  The law does not distinguish between dogs and sofas.  You might be emotionally attached to your used sofa, but the law considers that its value is no more than used furniture.  Same goes for your dog. 

Allison spent $100 when she bought Tux.  Chris should have spent $100 and got another dog.  In the end, if he wants a dog, that’s what he is going to have to do.

The Toronto Star attributes Chris’ lawyer with saying that the Small Claims Court may be the place for “pet custody disputes”.  I strongly discourage anyone from pursuing such a claim. 

First, it’s a mistake to use words like “custody”.  Really, Chris wanted shared possession of a piece of personal property.  You first would have to prove joint ownership.  Then, a court is most likely to give the person who didn’t get the property an award of half the value of the property – not make an order for joint possession (which may be beyond the court’s jurisdiction in any event).  In Tux’s case, that would be $50. 

Second, given what the Court of Appeal said about the case being a waste of time, do you really think a Small Claims Court judge is going to be any less annoyed that a $100 dog is taking up court time?  Is there any point in going to court to get an award of $50?