2006 Claim No. 261284
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Cite as: Pelton v. Fox, 2006 NSSM 23
BETWEEN:
Name: Mike Pelton Claimant
- and -
Name: Virginia Fox Defendant
Revised Decision: The text of the original decision has been revised to remove personal identifying information of the parties on October 20, 2006. This decision replaces the previously distributed decision.
Appearances:
Claimant: Self Represented
Defendants: Self Represented
D E C I S I O N
[1] This matter was heard in Halifax Small Claims Court on February 23, 2006.
[2] The Claimant claims for the return of a pet dog named “Docker” and also some other personal items as described in the Statement of Claim.
[3] The Claimant gave evidence and also called one witness, Linda Verge. The Defendant called a number of witnesses and also gave evidence herself.
[4] The Claimant indicated that Docker was purchased for his daughter seven or eight years ago. The Defendant says that the dog was purchased for her as a birthday present, I accept the Defendant’s evidence on this point. I note in this regard that the Claimant’s daughter did not attend or give evidence at the hearing. I also note that the dog had never lived with Mr. Pelton’s daughter. In fact, apart from Mr. Pelton’s statement that the dog was purchased for his daughter, there was nothing in the evidence at all indicating that the daughter had any connection or interest in the dog. I reject the Claimant’s evidence on this point.
[5] The evidence called by Ms. Fox made it overwhelming clear that she has been the primary care giver for this dog, if not the sole care giver.
[6] On the other hand, the evidence indicated that Mr. Pelton, who lived with Ms. Fox over the last approximately eight years, until September 16, 2005, took very little interest in the dog and seldom attended to its needs or gave it walks. Further, there was evidence given by Mr. Don Fox that he had witnessed Mr. Pelton hitting the dog in Ottawa. Following this evidence Mr. Pelton indicated that did not dispute “wacking” Docker in Ottawa. Mr. Pelton had earlier indicated that he never raised a hand to the dog. Such inconsistent statements given under oath raise serious issue about the credibility of a witness. As well, my impression overall was that Mr. Pelton was not credible in his evidence.
[7] I was far from convinced that Mr. Pelton had any genuine interest in the dog. There was a suggestion in at least one witness’s testimony that Mr. Pelton’s motivation in bringing the claim was not based on a genuine interest in the dog but was purely motivated by vindictiveness. While I would not be prepared to come to that conclusion, I certainly am of the view that Mr. Pelton had little or no any genuine interest in the dog.
[8] The Nova Scotia Small Claims Court Act provides the Court with jurisdiction to deliver specific personal property where the personal property does not have a value in excess of $15,000.00 (as of April 1, 2006, $25,000.00). A a pet dog is, in my view, personal property.
[9] In closing submissions, Mr. Pelton indicated that he was, in effect, seeking a form of access to Docker. In my view, the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to make an order amounting to an order for access. The Small Claims Court is a statutory tribunal and, as such, its jurisdiction is entirely derived from the terms of the Statute. I do not read the jurisdictional section in the Act, i.e. Section 9 as providing authority to make what amounts to an award of access to a pet.
[10] Accordingly, the Claimant’s claim with respect to the pet dog “Docker” is dismissed. The other items which were claimed are not, in my view, within the possession of the Defendant based on her credible evidence. Accordingly, that part of the claim is also dismissed.
[11] In the result, the Claimant’s claim is dismissed.
DATED at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this day of April, 2006.
Michael J. O’Hara
Adjudicator
Original Court File
Copy Claimant(s)
Copy Defendant(s)