A New Brunswick dog breeding operation won’t get $25,000 from a Nova Scotia couple who adopted one of its white German shepherds and had it neutered.

But small claims court adjudicator Julien Matte did order the couple to pay $1,781 to Karousel Hobby Farm.

The dispute opens a door into the world of breeding and ownership, in which a year-old canine’s semen has the value of a down payment on a house.

“The business (of breeding white German shepherds) involves ensuring that the dogs meet the high standard required by the registering authority through genetic testing while producing dogs that can be bred for future generations,” wrote Matte in his decision.

“The business consists of selling the offspring of certified male and female white German shepherds as well as running a breeding program to ensure continued stock. The operation requires significant attention to detail in ensuring the highest standards of quality are met to maintain a pure breed.”

In 2020, a Nova Scotia couple adopted Yeti, one of Karousel’s white German shepherd puppies.

They signed an “ownership commitment,” which outlined standards of care, stated that Yeti was not to be neutered without the breeder’s permission and that Karousel could repossess Yeti if adequate care was not being provided.

“No terms with respect to breeding rights were outlined in the contract beyond (Karousel) agreeing to pay for genetic testing, registration and the eventual cost of neutering,” reads the decision.

About a year and a half after Yeti’s adoption, its new parents provided the dog to Karousel to be bred. This produced a litter of nine puppies.

Yeti’s new family testified that they thought they would get a free puppy but instead were offered the opportunity to buy one for $2,200 ($400 off the purchase price, as a “thank you”).

They paid for the puppy but testified that after being bred, Yeti’s behaviour changed: he began spraying around the house, became aggressive and, at one point, attacked another dog.

They contacted Karousel and made clear their intention to have Yeti neutered.

Karousel offered to have the dog neutered after it was bred again in eight months and said they were to take care of the dog in the meantime.

Yeti’s new owners had the dog neutered two days later.

Shortly thereafter, Karousel sent the couple a letter demanding $25,000 in damages or the return of Yeti, if the dog hadn’t been neutered yet.

The breakdown of the damages sought by Karousel, as provided to the court, was:

• $7,500, half the cost of the claimant’s investment in Yeti;
• $2,576, costs associated with visiting defendants, consulting with lawyer and court fees;
• $5,600, compensatory damages associated with lost time and stress;
• $8,376-13,876, costs to obtain a replacement stud dog; and
• $17,800, loss of revenue for one litter of puppies.

Karousel sought $25,000 be awarded by the court, despite the claimed damages exceeding that amount.

Matte ultimately found that the couple had breached its contractual obligations under the ownership commitment.

“Although the contract is less than precise as to what breeding rights were retained, there is little ambiguity about which party was to decide when Yeti would be neutered,” reads the decision.

“In the face of clear opposition from the claimant and the words of the contract, the defendants elected to have Yeti neutered, thereby unilaterally ending any breeding rights that the claimant had under the contract.”

However, small claims court limits general damages to $100.

As Yeti has lived with the defendants for three years and Karousel had little interest in the dog as a pet, Matte awarded Karousel $1,400 in exchange for Karousel’s repossession rights.

With interest, the total award worked out to $1,781.