Schindle v Schindle, 2021 ABQB 99

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Schindle v Schindle, 2021 ABQB 99 Date: 20210208 Docket: FL01-34161 Registry: Calgary Between: Raymond Schindle Applicant - and - Jennifer Schindle Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice M.H. Hollins _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The parties were married for approximately 28 years. They separated recently and cannot agree on arrangements for the family dog, Jasper, a 3-year old Australian Shepherd. Mr.

Schindle brings this application for access to the dog once a week at an agreed location. [ 2 ] Both agree they purchased the dog jointly for $1,500 on or about July 3, 2017. Both claim to have spent more time than the other walking, feeding and playing with the dog, as well as taking him to agility and obedience classes. Both parties acknowledge that they purchased Jasper in part to support their son, who struggled in years past with addiction issues.

[ 3 ] Ms. Schindle took Jasper with her when she moved out some months ago. Thereafter, she agreed to bring Jasper to a dog park every Saturday for an hour so that Mr. Schindle could see him. After three such visits, Ms. Schindle refused to continue, saying that the visits had ended in screaming matches on every occasion and that he was using the proximity to verbally attack her. [ 4 ] Mr. Schindle wants the weekly dog park visits reinstated. Ms. Schindle wants no further contact with him.

Her Affidavit says that he has emailed her hundreds of times since she cut off access to the dog, including many references to her personal life. He has threatened suicide and has shown up at her apartment without notice. While I appreciate that sifting through Affidavit evidence to discern exactly how these interactions have played out is not possible, it is clear that they have been problematic. [ 5 ] Ms. Schindle claims that Jasper is her “emotional support dog”, although no official designation as such was provided. Mr.

Schindle says that he does not wish to remove the dog from her care as he understands their bond, although, with very few relationships in Calgary, he considers Jasper a companion and misses him very much. [ 6 ] These cases – and there are a not insignificant number of them – are difficult.

While the law is very clear that family pets are and must be treated as property on dissolution of a marriage, we can all understand the emotional connection that pet owners have to their pets. [ 7 ] However, I agree with the observations of Danykuik, J in Henderson v Henderson , 2016 SKQB 282 that it is inappropriate to make what are effectively custody rulings in a property matter. I note that neither party has applied for a division of property seeking ownership of Jasper.

In my view, the dog remains – without prejudice to any future adjudication – joint property. [ 8 ] Given the very real difficulties occasioned by prior attempts to arrange visits with the dog, I will not grant Mr. Schindle access to Jasper as requested. Whether either party attempts to pursue a legal determination of ownership is up to them. [ 9 ] Ms. Schindle will have

Schedule “C” costs for the morning chambers appearance, payable forthwith. Heard on the 26 th day of January, 2021. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 8 th day of February, 2021. M.H. Hollins J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mr. Adam Rosenke for the Applicant, Mr. Raymond Schindle Mr. Robert Knight for the Respondent, Ms. Jennifer Schindle