Woman gets to keep her dog after neutering dispute with Victoria Humane Society

A small claims court decision has recently been reached between the Victoria Humane Society (VHS) and a woman who adopted a dog from the organization. 

Karen Rogers adopted a puppy named Grizzly from VHS in March 2024, but refused to bring her dog back in for a neutering appointment.

VHS said this was a breach of contract and requested that she return the dog and pay $5,000 for “loss of peace and reputational harm.” Rogers argued the contract was non-binding. 

Rogers counterclaimed $958.30 for the cost of Grizzly’s neutering and microchipping, though she had him neutered privately, claiming it was included in the parties’ contract. 

She also claimed $4,041.70 for “pain and suffering” caused by VHS. Rogers’ counterclaim totalled $5,000 as well. 

The organization argued they were not responsible for Rogers’ claims.

Tribunal member Amanda Binnie oversaw the small claims resolution process and first determined that there was no grounds for VHS’s reputational harm claim. 

“Other than pointing to the fact that Grizzly remains unneutered, VHS provided no evidence about this alleged reputational harm or how Mrs. Rogers caused it,” wrote Binnie. 

“In any event, I find such a claim would likely be for defamation, which is outside the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.”

On the other matters in this claim and counterclaim, Binnie reviewed the sequence of events that led to the matter coming to court. 

According to Rogers, when she adopted Grizzly, a very busy VHS staff member told her she only needed to sign at the bottom of the contract, not initial each term like the agreement required.

Rogers says she believed that she was paying a $749 fee to leave with Grizzly, who she thought was already a neutered and microchipped puppy. 

VHS disagreed with this notion and argued that Rogers was aware the puppy was unneutered, which was reportedly communicated to her by those who fostered Grizzly and were at the event he was adopted from. 

Both of the puppy’s foster-owners said they told Rogers he was unneutered and that she would need to bring him back to VHS for an appointment. 

Rogers also acknowledged being told this information, but claims she was not told an age at which he would need an appointment. 

Binnie also determined in her decision that Rogers signed another document, aside from the adoption contract, which said she acknowledged that Grizzly had an appointment to be “altered” roughly two weeks following his adoption. 

The court also determined that the form clearly stated Rogers agreed that if she did not bring Grizzly to that appointment, he would “revert back” to VHS. 

Ultimately Rogers said she wanted to wait a little while longer to neuter Grizzly after confirming the procedure had not been done and tried to arrange a postponement of the appointment.

VHS refused to allow her to postpone and threatened legal action if she did not immediately return Grizzly to their care. She did not return the dog. 

Rogers paid $95.75 to have Grizzly microchipped in April 2024 and she paid $899.99 for his neutering fee in February 2025. 

VHS argues that Rogers clearly breached the parties’ agreement by failing to take Grizzly to his neutering appointment, while Rogers argues that the adoption agreement was unconscionable. 

After reviewing related cases, Binnie determined that Rogers did get Grizzly neutered eventually and that it would be unreasonable to order his return to VHS. 

Binnie also found VHS should be responsible for Grizzly’s microchipping cost to Rogers, but not his neutering cost. 

As for Rogers’ claim that she should be entitled to  $4,041.70 for pain and suffering, this claim was dismissed in its entirety because there was no evidence to show for it. 

VHS was, however, ordered to pay $62.50 in Civil Resolution Tribunal fees. 

Following the case’s conclusion, Rogers got to keep her dog and VHS was made to pay her a total of $162.25 for the microchipping cost and her small claims fees.