Practical, not Purr-fect: Why Ontario’s Pets-as-Property Approach Makes Sense

For most people, pets are more than furry companions—they are family. In 2022, the Angus Reid Institute conducted a survey of Canadian pet owners and found that 7 out of 10 of them described their relationship to their pet as “extremely close- like a family member” (as opposed to close/very important, not that close, or no relationship at all). [1] Given the nature of people’s relationships to their pets, it is no surprise that the issue of what happens to a pet in the context of a separation can feel akin to a parenting dispute. However, in Ontario, there is no such thing as a “best interest of the pet” analysis as there is for children. Pets are legally classified as property and subject to the same property division rules under the Ontario Family Law Act. [2]

The “pets as property” regime may feel unsettling to pet owners given how fundamentally different they are from inanimate objects. Pets are living creatures with unique needs and special bonds with their caregivers, which complicate the application of the usual property division rules. In the ordinary course, a disagreement on the ownership of a piece of furniture could be resolved by an order or agreement that one party pay the other the value of the furniture or that the parties jointly sell the furniture and divide the proceeds equally. Given the heightened sentimental nature of pet ownership, applying the same principles to a pet could lead to unsatisfying and devastating results.

Recognition of Companion Animals in British Columbia

In response to the unique relationship families have with their pets, British Columbia (B.C.) famously took steps to carve out a space for them in its family law legislation. In January 2024, the B.C. Family Law Act was amended to include “companion animals” (or pets), allowing courts to consider factors beyond simple property ownership when determining who should retain a companion animal in a dispute, including:

·       The circumstances in which the companion animal was acquired;

·       The extent to which each spouse cared for the companion animal;

·       Any history of family violence;

·       A spouse’s cruelty, or threat of cruelty, toward an animal;

·       The relationship that a child has with the companion animal;

·       The willingness and ability of each spouse to care for the basic needs of the companion animal; and

·       Any other circumstances the court deems relevant.[3]

Interestingly, while these factors resemble the best interest of the child test, B.C. courts have clarified that these new amendments do not refer to the “best interests of the companion animal” but rather, “family property…treated differently than other property…reflecting their status as valued members of the family.”[4]Unlike the the powers typically available in making a parenting order for a child, however, the B.C. Family Law Act at s. 97 (4.2) specifically provides that courts must not grant joint ownership or compel spouses to share possession of a companion animal.

As B.C.’s companion animal amendments are relatively new, they have only been applied in a few cases. The first case in B.C. applying the amendments, Bayat v. Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619 [Bayat], left B.C. lawyers confused because contrary to s. 97 (4.2) of the B.C. Family Law Act, the Court in Bayat ordered a week-about, shared “pawrenting” schedule and joint decision-making of a family dog on an interim basis. This was later clarified in Glassen v. Glassen,2025 BCSC 640, where the Court confirmed that shared arrangements are only permissible on an interim basis, but not in a final Order.[5]

In Glassen, the Respondent sought shared time with the family dog, Toba, primarily because the parties’ daughter stated she always “misses Toba” while with the Respondent.[6]While the Court accepted and considered the child’s needs and feelings, the Court ultimately decided to award sole possession of Toba to the Claimant due to the Respondent’s “rigid unwillingness” to accommodate the Claimant when exchanging Toba.  

…on the whole of the evidence, [the Respondent’s]conduct and communication indicates there is little prospect of success in thenear  term for the parties to arrive at amutually accepted schedule and mechanism for exchange of Toba…I am concerned that more frequent contact between the parties for the purposes of exchanging Toba may lead to more conflict between the parties, which is ultimately not in[the child’s] best interest.[7]

Although the new amendments allow courts to consider the needs of the companion animal, its application has mostly focused on the humans involved, so far. In Glassen, the child’s best interests were ultimately the deciding factor. In another case, Bekar v. Mundo, 2025 BCSC 1843,[8]the Court decided that the family dog should remain with the Claimant as the Claimant asserted the family dog was “always hers” and primarily obtained toassist her following a suicide attempt. While the Respondent’s treatment of the dog (feeding the dog human food, which made the dog sick) was also called into question, the Respondent failed to address this allegation.

There is only one companion animal decision in B.C. so far that has centered the animal’s needs. In Palm v. Macdonald, 2025 BCSC 2510, the Respondent had taken the family dog from the Claimant’s residence while she was at work. The Court found that it was in the best interests of the dog to be returned to the Claimant as the dog had lived in the Claimant’s home for most of his life, had ample space in the Claimant’s yard to run around, and because there were other dogs that would provide companionship to him.

B.C. Animal Lawyer Victoria Shroff described the new legislative test as a “best interests for all concerned test,”[9]including the interests of the whole family – both spouses and any child, plus the needs, interests, and well-being of the companion in dispute. While the intent of the framework is commendable and provides legal recognition of a companion animal’s sentience and special status, putting this into practice could be difficult as it requires balancing the interests of multiple parties, including the companion animal.

Challenges of the “Pet Custody” Framework

Inthe context of Ontario’s already-overwhelmed legal system, more issues couldarise than solved by adopting B.C.’s pet custody approach and open thefloodgates to more litigation. For example, what counts as a companion animalunder the law – while cats and dogs are socially accepted companion animals,will this definition extend to reptiles, exotic birds, or insects? How do youdecide which spouse meets the pet’s needs best; what if one spouse’s jobrequires them to be away from the home but they are the main financial provider of the pet’s expenses, but the other spouse who is home most of the time is the“primary caregiver” of the pet? Would expert evidence such as a veterinaryassessment or behavioural report be necessary in determining the pet’s “best interests”? What if a child’s close relationship with the pet is at odds with acourt-ordered parenting schedule? If some kind of shared “custody” is determined in the interim, how will the pets’ “paw-renting” time be determined, how will their expenses be shared – is there going to be a temporary financialarrangement similar to child support and section 7 expenses? The answer to these questions is that we don’t know, as these questions have not yet made it to the courts in B.C. However, one can easily imagine more and more scenariosand questions that could arise.  

The “floodgates” concern was touched on in the 2021 Ontario Superior Court case, Duboff v. Simpson, where the Court determined the ownership of a pet dog. Justice Papageorgiou stated:

…[C]ourts are not equipped to supervise the sharing of a pet. Orders requiring some kind of shared schedule would encourage cases like this in the context of limited court resources… As well, there are significant wide-ranging policy concerns about ongoing supervision which could be required.    In this case it would be particularly problematic to make an order that the parties share[the dog]. When [the Respondent] was interviewed by the police related to this matter, she said that she was afraid of [the Applicant] and did not want to see him again.  The Order which [the Respondent] seeks would likely result in further conflict.[10]

While there is no indication that Ontario will change its pets-as-property approach in favour of one resembling B.C.’s companion animal framework, this does not mean that the province does not recognize the special nature of people’s relationships to their pets. In recent years, Ontario courts have moved beyond the narrow question of “who purchased the pet” when determining ownership. In Coatesv. Dickson, 2021 ONSC 992, the Court emphasized that the determination of ownership may involve a broader assessment, including:

·       Whether the animal was owned or possessed by one of the people before;

·       Any express or implied agreement as to ownership, made either at the time the animal was acquired or after;

·       The nature of the relationship between people contesting ownership at the time the animal was first acquired;

·       Who purchased and/or raised the animal;

·       Who exercised care and control of the animal;

·       Who bore the burden of the care and comfort of the animal;

·       Who paid for the expenses related to the animal's upkeep;

·       Whether at any point the animal was gifted by the original owner to the other person;

·       What happened to the animal after the relationship between the litigants changed; and

·       Any other indicia of ownership or evidence of agreement relevant to who has or should have the ownership of the animal.

These expanded considerations, which now include the relationship with, and provision of care and comfort to the animal in application have led to sound decisions. Most recently, these factors were applied in Franco v. Franco, 2024 ONSC6436. In Franco – although the Respondent paid for the family dog, the Applicant was ultimately awarded ownership of the dog due to her care and maintenance of the dog, supported by veterinary and microchip registrations listing her as the owner, confirmations from breeder and groomer corroborating that she owned the dog, and veterinary appointment records listed under her name.

Legal Certainty through Ontario’s Property-Based Approach

While Ontario’s pets-as-property approach reads as cold and emotionally unsatisfying to pet lovers on its face, it offers something that is also extremely valuable in family law disputes: clarity and finality. The property-based model avoids dragging out painful disputes and discourages parties from using pets as leverage.

B.C.’s attempt to strike a balance between property law and animal welfare is an interesting solution, but one that risks over-complicating private disputes and overwhelming a legal system already stretched thin. This could change as the law evolves but until courts are better equipped—or legislation more clearly defines how to deal with “custody” of companion animals—the Ontario model remains the more favourable, albeit less cuddly, approach.

Practical Tips for Paw-rents in Ontario

Given the current legal framework in Ontario, the best way to protect your pet in the event of a separation is to proactively address the issue by including pet provisions in a domestic contract, which can include who retains ownership in the event of a separation, who will bear the financial responsibilities, and to set expectations surrounding shared time, if any. Intentionally carving out provisions of this nature for your pet in the event of a separation can provide clarity and avoid the need to incur the emotional and financial cost of litigation.

‍

[1] Angus Reid Institute, Fifi, Fido & Affordability: As cost of living rises, pet owners praise veterinarian care but say it costs too much (17 November 2022),online: https://angusreid.org/canada-pandemic-pets-veterinarians-insurance/

[2] Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 [Ontario Family Law Act]

[3] Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25 [B.C. Family Law Act], at s. 97(4.1)

[4]See Palm v Macdonald, 2025 BCSC 2510 (CanLII) at para. 14

[5] Glassen v Glassen, 2025 BCSC 640 (CanLII) [Glassen], at para. 174

[6] Glassen, at para. 173

[7] Glassen, at paras. 178-179

[8] Bekar v Mordo, 2025 BCSC 1843 (CanLII)

[9] Victoria Shroff, “Is Sharing Family Pet ‘Best for All Concerned’ in Pet Custody Cases?”(Law360 Canada), 2 May 2024, online: https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1831954/is-sharing-family-pet-best-for-all-concerned-in-pet-custody-cases-v-victoria-shroff-kc

[10] Duboff v. Simpson, 2021 ONSC 4970 (CanLII), at paras. 44-45

‍