An elderly woman who sought the return of her dog after a family member surrendered it to a shelter in Victoria, B.C., has had her claim refused. A B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision – posted online April 28 – outlines the situation regarding Edith Carroll and her plea for the shelter to return her dog Chloe, alongside a sum of $3,000 for the “pain and suffering” endured as a result of her loss. According to the decision, Carroll adopted Chloe from a “poor situation” in October 2023 and had “loved, cared for, groomed and trained” the dog. Chloe “thrived in her care,” it read. Carroll considered giving up Chloe in January 2024 after issues with her mobility raised concerns over how she would properly care for her pet. Carrol was considering rehoming Chloe, “but had not made up her mind” when her family member, referred to only as ‘K’, surrendered the dog to the Victoria Humane Society later that month, the decision said. K, acting as her legal owner, signed an agreement to surrender Chloe and the society took the pet in, gave her dental treatment, and adopted her out to a new owner. Tribunal Member Micah Carmody determined the society had not been negligent by taking and rehoming Chloe, and that it had “acted in good faith” by accepting K as the dog’s owner, largely due to the close familial relationship between K and Carroll. “It is undisputed that K told the society she owned Chloe together with Ms. Carroll, and brought Chloe in along with her toys, clothes and food, like a typical owner would,” said Carmody in the decision, adding K was also identified as Chloe’s owner on some of Chloe’s medical records. The society had also spoken with Carroll’s husband, who had agreed it best they take Chloe given how costly her required dental work was going to be. “In the circumstances of having two immediate family members’ approval, I find it was reasonable for the society not to contact Ms. Carroll before accepting Chloe’s surrender,” the decision read. According to the decision, Carroll didn’t deny her husband had authority to make decisions about Chloe, and had even seemingly been willing to give up her pet herself after learning of the dental care she needed, only to change her mind further down the line.“Ms. Carroll emailed to say she found a new home for Chloe and wanted to cancel her upcoming dental appointment. The notes appear to copy and paste Ms. Carroll’s email and there is no suggestion she was upset about the decision,” it read. “Based on this, I find that even if the society had contacted Ms. Carroll when K surrendered Chloe, she likely would have agreed. It seems she regretted the decision only later.” Carroll’s claim was dismissed.
