Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Tech Style & Beauty Kitchen & Dining Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNewsCanadaB.C. woman ordered to repay ex-fiancé over $5,000 for missing engagement ringThe woman told her ex she still had the ring and was keeping until she was at peace with end of their relationship, but later claimed she didn't have itLast updated 0 minutes ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.A B.C. woman has been ordered to repay her ex-fiancee over $5,000 for an engagement ring that wasn't returned and remains unaccounted for. Photo by Kwangmoozaa /Getty Images/iStockphotoA B.C. woman who offered contradictory statements to a civil resolution tribunal on the whereabouts of an engagement ring has been ordered to compensate her former fiancée over $5,000 for the missing jewelry.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorAccording to a decision posted last week, Megan Klenman was in a long-term relationship with Krystol Bullock in March 2020 and decided to propose with a ring valued at $4,859.68.Things soured between the two by that August, leading Klenman to “step back,” tribunal vice chair Kandis McCall wrote. They remained engaged, however, and both parties agreed that Bullock would keep the ring for the time being. Get a dash of perspective along with the trending news of the day in a very readable format.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againTheir relationship ended for good two years later, and a series of text messages presented by Klenman as evidence shows repeated requests for the ring’s return and several responses from Bullock promising to do so.As noted by McCall, provincial laws dictate “that if an engagement ends before marriage, the engagement ring is to be returned to the party who purchased it,” and since the two didn’t cohabitate during the relationship, the division of property under the Family Law Act does not apply. In one text exchange, Klenman asked that it be sent via courier service, but Bullock declined, saying “she did not want to take the chance that it might not end up” being returned. Three weeks later, Bullock sent Klenman a message “saying she needed to be at peace with the end of their relationship before returning the ring,” only to send another message that same day saying she no longer had the ring but that Klenman was “welcome to go through the boxes in her garage to find it.”She claimed not to have it in another message two weeks later.Bullock argued that the messages, while accurate, were “taken out of context” because Klenman had blocked her across “communication platforms,” making it impossible to obtain the full exchange.But McCall said Bullock failed to tell the tribunal “what the context would show, describe the allegedly missing messages, or explain how they would prove that she gave the ring back.”Bullock submitted that her messages about returning the ring were meant “to avoid conflict,” not an admission that she still had it in her possession.She also claimed that Klenman had already taken back the ring and its box during a 2020 argument when she left the room. She included a written statement from her daughter to support the claim, alleging that Klenman vowed to take the ring back if Bullock was not going to wear it. It was given little weight by McCall, noting that Bullock’s daughter was not in the room and could not have seen Klenman take it.McCall said Bullock’s memory “contradicts her later messages” in which she tells Klenman she has the ring and would return it when she finds peace. “Bullock’s reason for not returning the ring shifted over time from ‘I will give you the ring when I’m ready’ to ‘I do not have the ring,” McCall wrote, noting that Bullock never once reminded Klenman in the text exchanges presented that it had already been reclaimed.McCall also rejected the notion that Bullock was trying to dodge a confrontation with Klenman.“It makes no sense that she would change her reason for not returning the ring and invite (Klenman) to her home to look for it if she did not have it in her possession, particularly if she was trying to avoid conflict.”And since Bullock insisted she does not currently have the ring to return, McCall ordered her to instead reimburse Klenman the full cost plus tribunal-related fees for a total of $5,055.80.Bullock argued the ring is no longer worth what was paid in 2020, but McCall said she “provided no evidence showing what the current value would be or why it would depreciate.”Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.