Pets are property under the law and custody-like arrangements are generally inappropriate: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that a 10-year-old Yorkshire Terrier belongs to the wife in a family law dispute, reaffirming the classification of pets as property under Canadian law.
The case focused on determining ownership of the dog, Meg, following the couple's separation in March 2023. The wife claimed the husband gifted her Meg in 2014 while they were cohabiting in Brazil. She supported her argument with documentation, including a purchase agreement naming her as the owner, veterinary records, and a microchip registration. The husband, who paid for Meg, argued that he was the rightful owner and that pets are not subject to shared custody or best-interest considerations.
In its decision, the court examined two approaches to determining pet ownership: the traditional method focusing on who purchased the animal and a broader approach considering factors like care, control, and maintenance. Applying the latter, the court concluded that the wife was Meg's primary caregiver and the lawful owner. Evidence showed the wife arranged Meg’s care, appointments, and grooming and was listed as the owner on key documents, including a microchip registration and veterinary records in Brazil.
While the husband presented some documentation, such as a health certificate from Meg’s travel to Canada and recent microchip registrations in his name, the court deemed these insufficient to establish ownership. It also drew an adverse inference from the husband’s refusal to produce vaccination records that might have clarified ownership.
The Superior Court noted that pets are treated as indivisible property under the Family Law Act and that custody-like arrangements are generally inappropriate for animals. However, the court found sufficient evidence to make a final determination of ownership at the motion stage, avoiding the need for a trial.
The ruling ordered the immediate return of Meg to the wife and required the husband to transfer all related documentation. The court also awarded the wife $5,000 in legal costs, citing her reasonable litigation expenses.
