A B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision says a woman in Greater Victoria must return a cat to her ex after they broke up in a case that serves as a warning to any couple who decides to get a pet during their relationship.
The Nov. 10 decision details a fight over who should have custody of Tobi the cat.
A man took his ex to the CRT because, despite sharing Tobi after the couple had broken up, the woman suddenly wouldn鈥檛 return the cat after a visit.
The man wanted the CRT to order the return of Tobi and was also claiming $2,000. The woman responded that she was the rightful owner of Tobi on the basis of an 鈥渁greement between the two parties.鈥�
鈥淭he respondent acknowledges that when the parties broke up in October 2022, Tobi stayed with the applicant (the man),鈥� said the ruling. 鈥淭he applicant would then drop off and pick up Tobi from 鈥榲isits鈥� with the respondent. This pattern continued without incident until January 2023.
鈥淥n January 11, 2023, the applicant texted the respondent to say he was having 鈥榮econd thoughts鈥� about dropping Tobi off for a visit with the respondent as he was concerned the respondent would not return the cat. The respondent replied to reassure the applicant, writing 鈥榳hy? i said that i would鈥� and 鈥榓nd i鈥檇 give him back.鈥� The text messages, reproduced as written, make it clear the respondent promised to return Tobi to the applicant.鈥�
But after that visit, the woman never returned Tobi to the man, who then took the case to the CRT.
According to the CRT decision, Tobi was purchased for $350 in 2021. The CRT ruled that the man was the actual owner. One point the ruling makes is that pets are considered 鈥減ersonal property鈥� and couples need to be clear when they get a pet about if they both paid for it.
鈥淭he parties agree the applicant paid the original $350 cost to adopt Tobi from a third party on November 25, 2021,鈥� said the ruling. 鈥淭he respondent says the applicant paid because 鈥榦ne of us had to make the original payment.鈥� The respondent further says she 鈥榤ade payments鈥� to the applicant in respect of Tobi over the course of their relationship but does not say she paid the applicant any share of Tobi鈥檚 purchase cost or provide any evidence that she did so. The respondent also does not explain why each party could not have paid half of the upfront cost. So, I find the applicant solely paid for the cost Tobi鈥檚 adoption and owns Tobi, subject to any agreement between the parties to the contrary.鈥�
The CRT ruling said that since Tobi was the man鈥檚 property, then the woman should have returned the cat, although it dismissed the man鈥檚 claim of $2,000, having not proven the market value of Tobi.
READ MORE:
READ MORE:
