Background
The dispute concerned Dandy, a therapy dog working with Victim Services Toronto (VST). Roman Dabrowski claimed that an enforceable agreement governed Dandy’s custody or transfer of legal ownership after the dog retired from VST. Bobbie McMurrich was also a respondent in the proceeding.
The Superior Court of Justice found that no enforceable oral agreement existed. It ordered that Dandy be returned to VST and then returned to McMurrich. The application judge also made a costs award of approximately $29,000. Dabrowski appealed the merits order and sought leave to appeal the costs order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the application judge correctly required certainty on the essential terms of an alleged oral contract and made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the purported agreement lacked that certainty.
The record did not establish whether the alleged arrangement concerned ownership or custody, responsibility for Dandy’s expenses, its end date, or a schedule for Dandy’s care. There had also been no discussion of consideration. The court therefore declined to disturb the order requiring Dandy’s return to VST and then to McMurrich.
The court also refused to interfere with the costs decision. Costs awards are discretionary and attract significant deference, and the application judge had carefully addressed proportionality, the Superior Court proceeding, the parties’ settlement offers, and their reasonable expectations. The appeal was dismissed, with appeal costs fixed at $6,267.84 inclusive of HST and disbursements, including $1,932.30 payable to McMurrich.
Key Takeaways
- An oral contract need not resolve every detail, but its essential terms must be sufficiently certain to be enforceable.
- Uncertainty over ownership versus custody, expenses, duration, care arrangements, and consideration supported the finding that no contract existed.
- Ontario appellate courts will generally not disturb costs awards absent a reviewable error.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary difficulty of enforcing informal oral arrangements involving animals and post-employment or retirement arrangements. Parties asserting such an agreement must establish sufficiently definite essential terms, not simply a shared expectation about the animal’s future care.
It also reinforces the high degree of deference afforded to first-instance costs decisions, particularly where the judge has addressed proportionality and settlement-related considerations.