Table of Contents
For many couples, pets are more than just animals—they are cherished family members. When a relationship ends, deciding who keeps the pet can be emotionally charged. Disputes over pet ownership can be just as intense as those over parenting arrangements. The thought of losing a beloved companion can bring feelings of grief, anger, and uncertainty. Family lawyers at Velletta Pedersen Christie can help navigate these complex and often contentious situations.
Fortunately, the legal landscape in British Columbia has evolved to address these scenarios by adding provisions about companion animals to the legislation.
What is a companion animal?
In January 2024, the BC Family Law Act was amended. Section 3.1 defines a companion animal as a pet who is not a service animal, nor kept as part of a business or for agriculture.
Traditionally, companion animals were treated as mere property, subject to asset division like a car or furniture. The focus of the legal analysis was on ownership. In cases where a pet was determined to be joint property, the other party would have to buy out the other’s financial interest in the animal.
This approach remains common in most provinces. For example, in Coates v Dickson, 2021 ONSC 992, the judge awarded each party sole ownership of one dog—Jazz to one person and Jetta to the other. However, to many pet lovers, dividing pets like assets is an untenable solution.
The recent amendments to the Family Law Act in BC have taken a more progressive approach by recognizing pets as more than mere property, emphasizing their role in family life.
Factors Considered in Pet Custody Disputes
While still listed under property division, section 97(4.1) of the BC Family Law Act requires the court to consider the following factors when making a decision regarding pet custody:
How the pet was acquired?
Pets can be adopted, rescued, fostered, gifted, or purchased. They may have been registered in one spouse’s exclusive name or jointly. Previously, if one party already owned an animal before entering the relationship, then that animal was considered excluded property and would not be subject to family law division. While prior ownership is still a factor in the court’s decision, it is no longer the sole determining factor.
Who provided care for the animal?
For example, which person primarily took the animal to vet appointments? Did one party handle daily tasks like walking the dog? Perhaps one spouse was responsible for most pet-related bills. The court may also consider which person is better suited to provide ongoing care, especially if the animal has medical needs such as diabetes.
Any history or risk of family violence, along with any history of cruelty or threats directed towards the pet?
Family violence is a layered and extensive area of family law which extends beyond the scope of this article. In the context of pet custody, the well-being and safety of the animal are key considerations, and judges may view past cruelty or neglect as indicators that a person is unfit to provide proper care. Additionally, if there is a risk that the pet could be used to intimidate or control the other party, the court may take steps to ensure the animal remains in a safe and stable environment.
Any relationship between a child and the companion animal?
If the pet has a strong emotional bond with a child, the court may consider the impact of removing the pet from that child’s life. The presiding Judge will weigh whether keeping the pet with one parent would help provide stability and emotional support for the child.
The willingness and ability of each spouse to care for the pet’s basic needs
A spouse who has historically been responsible for feeding, grooming, medical appointments, and daily care may have a stronger claim. However, the court will consider the specific circumstances of each spouse post-separation. Factors like work schedules, home environments, time to provide care, and financial resources will also play a role in the court’s decision. The presiding Judge will also consider whether one spouse demonstrates a greater commitment and capacity to ensure the pet’s well-being.
These are not the only factors the court may consider. Judges have discretion to evaluate any other relevant circumstances surrounding the situation.
Pet Custody Arrangements
Section 97 (4.2) of the Family Law Act is clear that Judges cannot order shared ownership or visitation arrangements for pets.
However, nothing prevents the parties from creating a legal agreement between themselves for such arrangements. Legal contracts can be crafted to ensure the pet’s well-being and establish a fair outcome for everyone involved. Consulting a family lawyer is essential for drafting these agreements.
Conclusion
For many of us, pets are members of our family. As a result, BC law now recognizes their significant role in family life. When facing a divorce or separation, negotiating a fair pet custody agreement outside of court is often the best solution—both in terms of cost and emotional well-being. If disputes arise, our family lawyers are well positioned to represent our clients in court by arguing in favour of the pet’s well-being.
A Cautionary Note
This article provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.