Calgary woman loses court fight over dog ownership

The Calgary Courts Centre pictured in Calgary, Monday, May 6, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

A Calgary judge has denied a woman’s appeal of an arbitrator’s decision that handed over ownership of two dogs to her ex-partner.

Justice M.R. Gaston of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench dismissed the appeal on May 22.

Appellant Cinde Kristine MacKenzie Peterson claimed the arbitrator assigned to the separation of her and her partner Ryan Lawrence Sluchenski erred when they awarded ownership of Pawsi and Torsen, the couple’s dogs, to her ex-partner.

 Peterson said she purchased the dogs, the decision was not in the “best interests” of Pawsi and that the arbitrator awarded relief that neither party asked for.

• Sign up for breaking news alerts from CTV News, right at your fingertips
• The information you need to know, sent directly to you: Download the CTV News App

According to court documents, Peterson and Sluchenski had been partners for more than 16 years and separated in January 2023.

The arbitrator’s decision, issued Jan. 29, 2024, awarded Sluchenski both dogs and ordered him to pay Peterson $2,300 as compensation of her interest in them.

The arbitrator recognized she originally purchased the animals, but since the initial sale was only conducted through credit under her name, decided the dogs were co-owned because the payments were handled by both individuals.

Gaston agreed with the arbitrator’s determination.

“Ms. Peterson’s complaint is a disagreement about the weight given to the factors. This is not an extricable question of law on which leave can be granted. The arbitrator was exercising her discretion in applying the law to the facts, making this issue one of mixed fact and law.”

‘Best interests’ of Pawsi

Peterson also appealed the arbitrator’s decision to consider the fact that Pawsi was more closely bonded to Sluchenski – something she said was a determination of “the best interests” of the animal.

Peterson told the court that was irrelevant to the case.

Gaston disagreed with Peterson’s characterization of the arbitrator’s decision.

“This finding is not a consideration of the best interests of Pawsi,” she wrote.

“The arbitrator did not decide based on the best interests of Pawsi, she made a decision based on a number of factors, including to which party companionship of the dogs was more important.”

Peterson also disputed the $2,300 award ordered by the arbitrator, stating they exceeded their jurisdiction by making the order that she said, “was procedurally unfair.”

Gaston said the payment was calculated out of a desire from both parties to ensure the dogs were not split up.

“It was within the arbitrator’s discretion to distribute the family property in a manner that she considered ‘just and equitable.’

“Because both dogs were awarded to Mr. Sluchenski, to keep the dogs together as instructed, the arbitrator awarded the value of half the dog’s purchase price to Ms. Peterson.”