Regina woman wins custody of Charlie the pug because former partner refused to vaccinate him

A Regina judge says a dog owner's adamant anti-vaccine views ultimately decided who got ownership of Charlie the pug in a canine custody dispute.

Provincial court Judge Paul Demong wrote that he appreciated the stakes in the case.

"These types of claims tear at the heartstrings of a judge," he wrote in his May 1 civil court decision.

"Having to decide whether a person is to be denied access to, and possession of, a pet that they have loved and cared for over many years is not an enjoyable task."

In the 10-page decision, Demong detailed how the couple began living together in 2015 and then jointly decided to buy the black puppy for $800 in 2017. They separated in 2021 and agreed to swap custody of Charlie weekly.

The arrangement worked until last year, when the woman advised the man that she would no longer honour the agreement because of his health and addiction issues and, "she further noted that she was concerned that the plaintiff was vehemently against vaccinations for the dog," Demong wrote.

Demong noted that Saskatchewan courts fully understand the "extreme affection" dog owners have for their pets. This can be a challenge for the courts given that, in the end, dogs are property.

"Dogs are wonderful creatures. They are often highly intelligent, sensitive and active, and are our constant and faithful companions. Many dogs are treated as members of the family with whom they live," wrote Court of King's Bench Justice Richard Danyliuk in a 2016 case.

"But after all is said and done, a dog is a dog. At law it is property, a domesticated animal that is owned. At law it enjoys no familial rights."

Demong said the man did not help his case by admitting under questioning that he had doctored the original purchase agreement by adding his name and signature to make it look like the couple had jointly paid the $800 to buy it from a breeder.

Even with that misstep, Demong said both owners raised the animal, took good care of it and shared costs.

It was the stance on vaccines that tilted the scale. The man had made it clear he opposed vaccines, going so far as sending a letter to their vet indicating that he did not consent "to Charlie my black pug get [sic] his vaccinations of any sort."

Demong said it wasn't only a health issue for Charlie. The vaccines covered rabies, bordetella, distemper, adenovirus, parainfluenza and parvovirus.

"Were he granted exclusive possession and ownership of Charlie and followed through with his anti-vaccine approach to Charlie's care, this nonfeasance/misfeasance could cause illness or death not only to Charlie, but to animals and humans which come into contact with him," Demong wrote.

"It is not only in Charlie's best interest, but it alleviates the potential concern that [his] approach to dog care might create serious health hazards to other animals and to people who encounter him."

Demong awarded the woman full ownership of Charlie, conditional on her paying her former partner $400.