Elevate your local knowledge
Sign up for the iNFOnews newsletter today!
Okanagan Humane Society suing Kelowna volunteer over adoption dispute
The Okanagan Humane Society is taking legal action against one of its foster volunteers following a dispute over a dog named Tonka.
The Okanagan Humane Society filed in the BC Supreme Court, March 18, accusing volunteer Michelle Dupuis of refusing to hand over Tonka for adoption.
The Notice of Claim says that Dupuis, who also runs Auntie M’s Canine Rehabilitation Foundation, refused to give back Tonka when the humane society found an adoptive family for him.
However, Dupuis told iNFOnews.ca she refused to let Tonka go, because the family were not a good fit for the vulnerable high-risk dog.
“This particular (family) was just not the right fit,” Dupuis told iNFOnews.ca. “And I did put my foot down about that. And it is our job as fosters to provide that feedback.”
Dupuis said Tonka is a Staffordshire and pit bull terrier mix, and he’s deaf.
“(Tonka) needs a really good home or he’s going to turn into a dangerous dog,” she said.
The humane society doesn’t have its own shelters and relies on volunteers to foster pets before finding them permanent homes.
After a decade working with dogs, Dupuis became a foster for the humane society last May. She successfully fostered a handful of dogs last year before handing them to their new owners.
She took in Tonka in December after he was surrendered to the humane society.
Dupuis said the meeting with the prospective adoption family on March 1 didn’t go well. The family’s dog didn’t get on with Tonka, and Dupuis strongly opposed Tonka being adopted by the family, saying they just weren’t the right fit for the type of dog that Tonka is.
“(The humane society) weren’t hearing this… they were so adamant that he go that day with these people,” she said.
Dupuis said the situation unravelled and became physical. The RCMP ended up being called.
“The Okanagan Humane Society manager demanded the return of Tonka immediately, but Ms. Dupuis drove away from the scene with Tonka and one of her vehicle doors still open and swinging,” the court documents reads.
No arrests were made, and Dupuis left with Tonka.
Concerned the dog would go to an inappropriate family, Dupuis filed her own adoption paperwork for Tonka that day and sent the $400 fee.
While the organization was happy for Dupuis to care for the dog, and many others before, it declined her adoption request. It’s contrary to an Okanagan Humane Society ad, which says fosters receive priority for adoption.
Days later, she received a cease and desist letter ordering her to give the dog back, or it would take legal action.
“They’re just trying to bully me,” she said.
The letter was followed by legal action.
In its legal filing, the Okanagan Humane Society accuse Dupuis of breach of contract and argues for an injunction for Tonka to be immediately returned to them.
She’s shocked that the humane society is happy to spend donor money on legal fees, paying a lawyer to sue her.
Dupuis reiterates that she was happy to see Tonka adopted by the right family and had no intention of keeping him.
She said previous dogs she fostered through the humane society all went to good homes, after everyone involved decided the family was a good fit.
She felt Tonka’s case was different and says she acted on what she felt was morally justified.
When reached for comment, Okanagan Humane Society president Romany Runnalls said she couldn’t discuss the matter as it was before the court.
None of the allegations has been proven in court.
News from © iNFOnews.ca, . All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Join the Conversation!
Want to share your thoughts, add context, or connect with others in your community?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
8 responses
It is a shame the president Romany R is turning a 💯 volunteer caring society into paid positions let alone using peoples donations for legal fees . OHS relies on their fosters to do their own adoptions and provide food and care for these animals. The foster is going to know best as they spend every day with the dogs and cats. That is why they do meet and greets so they can see the fit or not. OHS seems to be coming more about the numbers than the actual care and proper adoption processes of the animals, and the return of the adopted animals when they adopter feels its not a fit after the adoption. Shame on you OHS. The actual love and care has gone from this once full caring Rescue to a number game.
I guess the word adoption really means flogging.
I truly believe this foster MD did the right thing and put the animal first. My hat goes off to the foster, Tonka deserves a loving successful chance.
Once again the Humane Society proves its inability to make good decisions. Runnalls-ing this society into the ground. I mourn for the days of Louvain’s compassion and direction. What qualifications does the society have for the behavior evaluations of canines. And who approves funding to sue volunteers?!? Who gets physical with volunteers!?! Disgusting behaviour! This is why I donate to professionally audited societies.
Clearly this is not about the welfare of Tonka but to sustain the power tripping of the Board and or person in charge of the OHS who obviously has delusions of grandeur.
She has her panties in a knot because someone ( who knows the dog better and was at the meet and greet) dared to disagree with this placement for the dog’s sake. And what adopter would want to, in good faith, adopt a dog their dog does not get along with?
Bravo to the foster for protecting Tonka from what appears to be an INhumane organization that is using donor dollars for frivolous lawsuits just to soothe hurt feelings.
Wow! Wake up OHS. This is incredibly disturbing to read. Volunteers that open their homes to animals and this is how you treat them. Poor Tonka, we hope he stays where he is obviously well loved and cared for – with Dupuis. Curious on your OHS website you don’t have a code of conduct policy wondering what the repercussions where for the individual that became physical – OHS you have created a very unsafe situation for your volunteers and the public hope this person is no longer with your organization. How do I contact your board to express my concerns? You don’t list any board members on your site?
This angers me beyond belief!!! This dog was an owner surrender why? Because they obviously knew the dog was more than they could handle and needed a special home. His foster saw and knows what is best for the dog not the shelter!! She is trying to set the dog up for success not failure. I commend her for trying to do what is best for the dog and the shelter should have stood behind her. Sounds like she did the meet and greet and it didn’t go as well as it should have. Red flag so why push the adoption other than the shelter wants to exit the dog and take the cash! I am with 2 rescues, sit on the board of the one in the US, volunteer and foster for the one Kelowna and volunteer and foster for a shelter in the US. I have yet to hear anything good about the OHS!
Shame on OHS. They chose and trusted Dupuis in the past. Trust her valid decision in regards to Tonka’s special needs. She would rather adopt then to see Tonka go into the wrong home and some dire situation unfold that is preventable and could end up with injury or death. So let her adopt the sweet dog that has learned to trust her. Drop the suit where the money should be used for better means.
I agree with William Mastop’s comment, first of all (silly question) is the humane society using donated funds to sue Ms. Dupuis? If so that is just wrong, money DONATED is for the animals in care.
We all know this lady is/will be “blacklisted” now from ever fostering or adopting from the shelter so take the adoption fee and let her keep the dog. You used her for foster and she obviously passed the humane society’s “testing” if you will, so you know she’s not some psycho that’s going to hurt the dog.
Just my two cents.
When a Society chooses to use donated funds to pursue what is obviously an inter-personnel issue it really calls out the level of respect to which they hold the donations. Those funds were donated to help animals in need. Spending 10$ to pursue this matter was spending 10$ too much. The members of the Board who approved this action should be reimbursing the Society. This vendetta will have a significant effect on future donations and it won’t be a positive one.