Image Credit: Pixabay

A B.C. woman won't be seeing her beloved pooch anymore after a custody agreement over the dog ended up in court.

According to a March 30 B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision Christina McInulty and Jeffrey Wayne Bond had a custody agreement over their European Doberman dog named Bentley.

The couple bought the dog while they were together but after they separated they came to an agreement that they would share custody of Bentley on a rotating three-week cycle.

The agreement worked well for eight years until June 2022 when McInulty told Bond she had "discovered some pretty upsetting things" about him and no longer felt comfortable letting Bentley stay with him.

According to the decision, McInulty refused to tell Bond what the allegations were.

When the three weeks were up, Bond tried to retrieve Bentley from McInulty under "police supervision."

However, McInulty refused to let Bentley go so Bond took her to the online tribunal in order to get custody of the dog.

"At law, pets are considered personal property. This can become complicated when personal relationships break down because people do not want their pets treated like other personal property that can be divided or sold," the Tribunal said.

The B.C. government recently introduced legislation to give the courts more guidance in family custody battles over animals.

"To treat a pet not just like any other property but to actually consider what would be in the best interests of the pet and the family," B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma said when introducing the changes last month.

READ MORE: Former couple's custody battle over their dog divides N.L.'s top court

In this case, the Tribunal found both parties equally contribute to Bentley’s care and expenses and had no issues in the eight years of joint custody.

"Clearly, a dog cannot be divided, and parties do not generally want an order that their dog be sold with the proceeds shared between the parties," the Tribunal said.

The Tribunal then looked at which partner would put Bentley's best interests first.

The Tribunal said that while McInulty argued she is "no longer comfortable" with Bond having Bentley, she did not provide any details or explain the alleged behaviour.

READ MORE: Judge has to make tough decision in Salmon Arm doggy custody battle

Bond argued that Bentley had always had a stronger connection to him, while McInulty argued Bentley belonged with her.

The Tribunal pointed out that they've both looked after the Bentley for eight years, so both are capable of caring for the dog.

However, the Tribunal wasn't impressed McInulty breached her part of the custody deal.

"I find that Ms. McInulty unilaterally removing the dog from one of its owners, Mr. Bond, without any explanation about the allegedly 'upsetting' behaviour or how it may have been dog-related, displays a lack of ability to put Bentley’s best interests above her own personal interests," the Tribunal ruled.

The Tribunal ruled that McInulty had been given the opportunity but failed to substantiate the allegation about Bond, even though she used that reasoning for keeping Bentley.

"So, although I accept Ms. McInulty provided good care for Bentley, I find Mr. Bond is better suited to care for him," the Tribunal ruled.

READ MORE: Rottweiler caught up in B.C. love triangle has fate decided by court

Ultimately, McInulty was ordered to hand Bentley back to Bond within three weeks, and pay $175 fees.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © iNFOnews, 2023