B.C. tribunal weighs in on who gets Walter the dog after women split

A dog similar to this one was recently the subject of a civil resolution tribunal out of British Columbia to determine who gets the pup when a couple splits.

Article content

When couples split up, who gets the family pooch is more about money than love, according to a civil resolution tribunal out of British Columbia.

Article content

The tribunal heard the case of former romantic partners Misty Donovan and Makenzie Jade Murray who ended their two-year relationship in April 2024. The two women shared their dog, Walter, for another 10 months while living apart. Then in February 2025, Murray kept Walter and refused to bring him to Donovan’s home, where he’d been spending weekends.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Donovan asked the tribunal for an order requiring Murray to return Walter, who appears to be a Boston Terrier in their social media photos of him.

Article content

“While she claims $2,500, it is clear Ms. Donovan wants the dog, not monetary compensation,” said tribunal member Alissa Reynolds in the Sept. 23 decision that declares a dog, though loved like a child, is not in fact a child.

Article content

The tribunal’s task was not to award custody, Reynolds said, but to divide property, albeit nothing like a sofa or an espresso maker.

Article content

“The courts have recognized that animals are a unique form of personal property because they are living creatures and not inanimate objects,” she wrote in the decision.

Article content

“This means when pet-owners separate and there is a dispute about the pet, the question is who owns the pet rather than who should have ‘custody’ of it.”

Article content

Relevant factors to consider, Reynolds said, include “who bought and selected the pet, who attended its veterinary appointments, who paid for the pet’s needs, who licensed it, and how the parties viewed ownership.”

Article content

Murray chose Walter, noted the adjudicator.

Article content

Article content

“She provided her messages to the breeder that show this. She says Ms. Donovan was not involved in selecting Walter, and Ms. Donovan did not deny that. So, I find this factor favours Ms. Murray.”

Article content

Article content

But Reynolds found that Donovan purchased the dog for $2,000, noting she “provided bank statements and e-transfer details that show she paid the breeder.”

Article content

That favours Donovan, said the adjudicator.

Article content

Text messages and veterinarian records show that before Murray refused Donovan access to Walter, both women “attended Walter’s vet appointments, together and individually,” said the decision.

Article content

“However, Ms. Donovan says she was the one who remembered to book Walter’s regular checkups and follow-ups and advised Ms. Murray when they were. Ms. Murray does not deny that.”

Article content

The evidence shows that Donovan attended more of Walter’s appointments without Murray, and that Murray only took Walter on one emergency vet visit this past February when she was caring for the dog.

Article content

“However, Ms. Donovan attended all the follow-up visits. For that reason, I find this factor favours Ms. Donovan slightly,” Reynolds said.