Dispute over neutering adopted dog resolved by B.C. tribunal

A dog bowl and leash are seen in this undated stock image. (Image: Shutterstock)

A woman who adopted a puppy but did not return to neuter it has been allowed to keep her pet, according to a decision from B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal.

The Victoria Humane Society filed a claim seeking the return of a husky named Grizzly, on the grounds his owner breached a 2024 adoption contract.

Karen Rogers, in her response, argued the contract was not binding and the neutering appointment scheduled by the organization was too early.

The tribunal’s decision considered “relevant terms” of the adoption contract Rogers “undisputedly signed.” Those included a clause saying she would provide the dog with “humane treatment and care, and provide adequate food, water, shelter, and veterinary care”

Tribunal member Amanda Binnie’s decision also noted confusion about whether Grizzly was neutered arose after Rogers took her pet home.

“Mrs. Rogers says she understood that she was paying a $749 fee to leave with Grizzly, who was a neutered and microchipped puppy. This is consistent with ‘neutered male’ listed as the sex on Grizzly’s kennel card,” the decision said.

The tribunal decision noted there was a second signed document submitted as evidence, in which Rogers agreed to bring the dog back for an appointment to be “altered” two weeks after the adoption, saying if she missed the appointment Grizzly would “revert back” to the humane society and Rogers would have “no further claim to him.”

It was after Rogers reviewed that document and realized what it meant that the conflict over neutering Grizzly began, according to the decision.

Rogers called the humane society before the appointment to discuss postponing the dog’s sterilization until he was older, according to the decision. Part of the call, during which Rogers spoke with the society’s executive director, identified only as PS, was recorded and submitted as evidence in the dispute.

“In that call PS refused to consider Mrs. Rogers’ position. PS used strong language and aggressively threatened to send a bailiff to take Grizzly away if Mrs. Rogers did not take him to his neutering appointment,” Binnie wrote, in her decision.

“Though acknowledging she was not a vet, PS said neutering young prevented behavioural issues.”

Grizzly did not attend the appointment, and the humane society sent her a letter demanding the animal’s return roughly four weeks later.

“VHS says Mrs. Rogers clearly breached the parties’ agreement by failing to take Grizzly to his neutering appointment. VHS says its veterinarian neuters or spays all its animals early, and it is unproven that neutering early would have been harmful for Grizzly,” the decision said, summarizing the organization’s position.

The tribunal agreed that Rogers had breached the agreement to bring Grizzly to the neutering appointment but found the breach did require the return of the dog.

Binnie made no findings about when the best time is to neuter dogs but did find the evidence showed Rogers received advice from a veterinarian not to neuter Grizzly at 10 weeks old. Rogers also submitted evidence showing she had pre-paid the veterinarian for the procedure. Further, the tribunal noted there was no evidence Grizzly had impregnated another dog while unfixed.

“Taken together, I find this evidence shows that Mrs. Rogers fulfilled the contract’s primary goal, which was to place Grizzly in a loving home that considers his specific needs. I also find Mrs. Rogers was complying with the first term of the parties’ contract, which required her to provide Grizzly with adequate veterinary care,” Binnie wrote.

“In any event, I find it would be impractical to order Grizzly’s return. In submissions, VHS says that one reason it has parties sign neuter contracts is to free up space within its foster homes. It also says when people are looking to adopt, they want pets as young as possible. At this point, Grizzly has been with Mrs. Rogers and her family for over two years. Given Mrs. Rogers prepaid for his neutering over a year ago, I find Grizzly has likely been neutered by this point.”

The tribunal dismissed Rogers’ counterclaim for damages equivalent to the amount she prepaid for the neutering, citing the contract breach as the reason.