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

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.

Sign In or Create an Account

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.

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.

“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.

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

“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.

“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.”

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.”

Murray chose Walter, noted the adjudicator.

“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.”

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.”

That favours Donovan, said the adjudicator.

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.

“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.”

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.

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

Both women “claimed that they paid for the majority of Walter’s needs,” said the decision.

“This is complicated by the fact that Ms. Murray had three other pets and often paid for their food and other supplies together.”

But after reviewing all the financial information both women provided, Reynolds said it shows that Donovan “paid nearly three times as much” as Murray for Walter’s vet bills, pet food and supplies. “I find this factor heavily favours Ms. Donovan.”

Murray testified that her “messages with the breeder show the parties always intended that she would own Walter,” said the decision.

“She relies on her first message that said, ‘I’m very interested in a puppy,’ and a later message when she said, ‘I have been hoping to find Pearl (another pet) a little friend.’ However, that same message thread shows she also referred to both parties adopting Walter, as follows: ‘We would like to proceed with adopting…,’ ‘A bit about us…,’ ‘We are going to be in Victoria…I was wondering if we could stop by quickly and meet Walter,’ and ‘Would we be able to come pick him up…we are so excited!’”

Reynolds found that the messages show that Murray “intended that the parties would own Walter jointly.”

That’s also supported by their “agreement to share Walter after they split up,” said the decision.

Reynolds found both women “care about Walter, spend a lot of time enriching his life, and both are capable of taking care of his needs and health. So, I find this factor does not favour either party.”

Reynolds concluded “that the balance of the factors favours Ms. Donovan.”

She ordered Murray to give Walter to Donovan within 30 days.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.