My colleague previously blogged on the case of Rocco Jr., and the dispute over who is his legal owner. Since that blog, the parties have appeared before the court and the decision has been released in Carvalho v Verma.

By way of background, Mr. Carvalho passed away on November 24, 2022. His sister, Ms. Carvalho, is his Estate Trustee and the Applicant in this case. In the years prior to his death, Mr. Carvalho was in a relationship with Ms. Verma, the Respondent. There was some question over the nature of Mr. Carvalho and Ms. Verma’s relationship at the time of his death, but the Court noted that did not impact their assessment of the ownership of Rocco Jr.. Rocco Jr. lived with Mr. Carvalho, and the day following his death, Ms. Verma took Rocco Jr. to live with her.

The residue of Mr. Carvalho’s Estate is divided amongst his two sisters and his former romantic partner, Ms. Vasilevich. Ms. Verma was not a residual beneficiary. Mr. Carvalho’s Will says nothing about what should happen to Rocco Jr. upon his death. As such, Ms. Carvalho is seeking a declaration that Rocco Jr. was owned by Mr. Carvalho at the time of his death and therefore transferred to his Estate upon his passing.

In this case, Justice Stewart makes a comment that I think sums up the complicated issue surrounding Estates and ownership of pets:

“Dogs are personal property much like other chattels (albeit indivisible), even when purchased during the course of a relationship.  The question is one of ownership, not who wants the dog more, who loves the dog more or who would be the best owner.”

In today’s day, while pets are treated like children, the courts in Ontario do not view them as same and therefore, considerations like what would be best for the pet are not brought into discussions surrounding ownership disputes. This is often quite devastating and shocking for people to find out, as no one considers their pet simply as property.

In this case, Justice Stewart noted that traditionally the question of ownership was determined based on who paid for the pet. However, in Coates v Dickson, a 2021 decision from the Ontario Superior Court, the Court contemplated further factors, such as who cared for the animal, who paid for expenses, and whether there was an agreement made as to ownership, to help determine ownership of the pet.

Based on either method of analysis, Justice Stewart found that Mr. Carvalho owned Rocoo Jr..

The Respondent argued that Rocco Jr. had been gifted to her by Mr. Carvalho. However, Justice Stewart found that even if there was some evidence Mr. Carvalho referred to Rocco Jr. as a gift to Ms. Verma, the gift failed because there had been no act of delivery or transfer to Ms. Verma.

Lastly, Justice Stewart noted that the Respondent’s written argument contained reference to promissory estoppel, although this was not part of the oral argument. Again, Justice Stewart found the elements of promissory estoppel were not met because there was no evidence that Mr. Carvalho gifted or promised the dog to Ms. Verma.

Ultimately, Justice Stewart found that Rocco Jr. was owned by Mr. Carvalho at the time of his death and as such, forms part of his Estate. The Respondent has since appealed this decision and asked for a stay of the order to deliver Rocco Jr. to the Estate.

While this case continues to evolve, it showcases the importance of specifically outlining what should happen to your pets in your Will, and the issues that can arise if your Will is silent about it.

Thanks for reading!

Darien Murray