Mr. Justice Ted Zarzeczny described the one-day Supreme Court hearing as an affront to common sense based on the financial costs of the proceeding, the time expended by two leading counsel and the consumption of court time, on such a trivial issue.
The Judge heard three witnesses including an expert witness and found in favour of the wife, as she had initiated the purchase of the dog, spent more time training and caring for her as a puppy than her husband did, and was retiring to a dog-friendly community in the United States. She was ordered to pay $350.00 in compensation to her spouse.
Unfortunately for the husband, his new partner brought two Labrador dogs into their relationship and thus, the husband would have two dogs to keep him company.
The Court observed that the only reason their “dog” case was “tolerated” was because they had managed to settle all other issues, including the division of substantial property.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang