Research Guides: Animal Law: Pet Custody

Pet Custody

Book Reviews

David D Blouin, Book Review of Just Like Family: How Companion Animals Joined the Household by Andrea Laurent-Simpson, (2022) 100:4 Social Forces e11
Available online to the U of T community

Journal Articles

L’animal de la famille lors d’une séparation: un sujet sensible by Lessard, Michaël et Marie-Andrée Plante
(2023) 52:1 Revue de droit de l'Université de Sherbrooke 729
Open Access
Fur-Ever Homes After Divorce: The Future of Pet Custody by Sara Mickovic
(2022) 28:1 Animal Law 46
Available online to the U of T community.
"Who Gets the Dog?": A Family Law Approach by Jodi Lazare
(2020) 45:2 Queen's Law Journal 287
Open Access

Leading Cases

Morgana Rose Marie Sharpe v James Junior Richard, 2025 NBKB 5
Family Law
(2025) In this case, Morgana Sharp and James Richard asked the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick to determine the ownership of their dog, Majesty, following a breakdown in their common law relationship. The court found that while both parties shared ownership of Majesty to a degree, Ms. Sharpe took on a larger degree of care following the separation. In reaching a decision, Justice Doucet stated: “It troubles me to think that courts should not dedicate their valuable time and resources to determining the ownership of dogs… I want to emphasize the strong emotional connections between individuals and their beloved pets.”
Adams v Roth, 2024 BCCRT 1096
Family Law
(2024) The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled in favor of Chrissey Lea Adams in a dispute over the custody of her dog, Karin. Adams claimed her dog was stolen and given to Callum Roth, who refused to return Karin. Roth claimed that Karin needed rescuing from Adams, but the tribunal found insufficient evidence to support this. Roth was ordered to return Karin within 21 days.
Bayat v Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619
Family Law
(2024) The British Columbia Supreme Court judge granted former couple Sahar Bayat and Omid Mavedati joint custody of their golden retriever, Stella. The decision, based on 2024 changes in provincial family law, acknowledges the evolving status of companion animals beyond mere property. Despite disputes over ownership and allegations of neglect and abuse, Justice Scott Nielson noted both parties' care for Stella and their commitment to her well-being. Consequently, the court ordered a shared custody agreement, highlighting the importance of considering the best interests of the animal in custody disputes.
Carvalho v Verma, 2024 ONSC 1183
Estate Law
(2024) The Ontario Superior Court ordered Aliesha Verma to return a dog named Rocco Junior to Arlete Carvalho, the estate trustee and sister of Verma’s late boyfriend, Leonard Carvalho. Verma claimed the dog was gifted to her by Leonard before his passing, but Arlete contested this, seeking a court declaration of ownership. The court considered various factors, such as the turbulent relationship between the couple, evidence showing Leonard's significant financial contribution towards purchasing Rocco Junior, his designation as the dog's owner on veterinary records, and his primary role in caring for the dog. Based on the evidence presented, the court ruled that Rocco Junior was owned by Leonard Carvalho at the time of his death and should be returned to his estate.

RELATED DECISION:

Carvalho v Verma, 2024 ONCA 222

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Aliesha Verma’s motion seeking to stay the order requiring her to return the dog, Rocco Jr., to Leonard Carvalho's estate trustee, pending appeal on the basis that she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and a determination that the balance of convenience favored the estate.

RELATED DECISION:

Carvalho v Verma, 2024 ONSC 3915

The court ordered Aliesha Verma to pay $83,570 in costs to the estate trustee, emphasizing proportionality and rejecting both parties’ excessive legal expenses, which collectively totaled over $265,000 (with Ms. Carvalho seeking full indemnity costs of $212,025.52 and Ms. Verma seeking substantial indemnity costs of $55,395.77).

Enei v Enei, 2024 ONSC 6323
Family Law
(2024) The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed disputes arising from the separation of Giorgio and Tamara Enei after a 34-year marriage. Among other issues, the court noted that the rightful ownership of the two dogs taken by Ms. Enei upon leaving the matrimonial home remains unresolved due to conflicting evidence. The court emphasized that disputes over pets are legally treated as property matters, stating “it is not open to the Court to make a joint custody order in relation to pets.” This issue will proceed to trial for resolution.
Franco v Franco, 2024 ONSC 6436
Family Law
(2024) In a case regarding the guardianship of a ten-year-old Yorkshire Terrier named Meg, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the dog belongs with the wife, Emanuella Souza Franco. Emanuella sought such a ruling but alternatively sought a shared custody arrangement. The husband, Richardo Montemurro Franco also argued for guardianship of Meg but argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to order a shared residency schedule. The court found that documents, including a purchase agreement and microchip registration, supported Emanuella’s ownership claim. Richardo was ordered to return Meg and all related documents to Emanuella, and to pay $5,000 in costs.
Kiss v Leung, 2024 BCSC 2335
Family Law
(2024) In this case, Zsolt Kiss claimed entitlement to property based on a common law relationship with Christy Leung. Within his claims, Mr. Kiss sought ownership of a dog named Asha. The British Columbia Supreme Court found that the Family Law Act did not apply, as the judge agreed with Ms. Leung that she and Mr. Kiss were not in a marriage-like relationship. The claim to Asha was dismissed as Ms. Leung was the one who initiated contact with the breeder, was the sole name on the dog’s registration, and paid all veterinary expenses. While Mr. Kiss did take Asha to some veterinary appointments, he was not even listed on registration forms (Ms. Leung’s sister was the alternate contact).
Routledge v. Gremlin, 2024 BCCRT 1118
Family Law
(2024) The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled Beverly Routledge is the rightful guardian of a dog taken by Bailey Gremlin, ordering their return within ten days. The judge inferred that Gremlin believed the dog was a gift, but the tribunal found no clear evidence supporting this claim. Registration records showed the dog was still under Routledge’s name. The tribunal also awarded $125 in court fees to Routledge.
Bond v McInulty, 2023 BCCRT 263
Family Law
(2023) In this British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (BCCRT) case, the "best interests of the animal" approach resolved a pet custody dispute between former romantic partners. Despite joint ownership of the European Doberman dog Bentley, Ms. McInulty's decision to withhold custody demonstrated a lack of prioritizing Bentley's welfare. The BCCRT awarded sole custody to Mr. Bond, emphasizing his better suitability for Bentley's care.
MacKinnon v MacKinnon, 2022 NSSM 38
Family Law
(2022) Groundbreaking decision about pet custody of a Golden Retriever dog called Brixton, written in the Mi’kmaw language. The Small Claims Court neatly set out the law regarding pets and ownership, including the factors to be considered when determining who should ultimately get custody of a pet.
Poole v Ramsey-Wall, 2021 BCCRT 789
Family Law
(2021) The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (BCCRT) applied the "best interests of the animal" approach in a dispute over ownership of a mixed-breed dog, Tessa. Despite the legal characterization of animals as property, the tribunal considered Tessa's welfare in determining ownership. While acknowledging excellent care provided by Ms. Ramsey-Wall, the BCCRT awarded sole custody to Mr. Poole, prioritizing Tessa's accustomed routine and well-being.
Marquis c Harvey, 2019 QCCS 4361
Family Law
(2019) In this Québec Superior Court case, the judge weighed the interests of two dogs, Pico and Floki, in a custody dispute between former common-law partners. Despite Mr. Marquis' emotional bond with Pico, evidence of the close connection between the two dogs led the judge to grant custody of both to Ms. Harvey, preserving their relationship. This decision underscored the significance of considering the well-being and relationships of the animals involved.
Baker v Harmina, 2018 NLCA 15
Family Law
(2018) This leading pet custody case concerns a dog named Mya. In this case, Mr. Baker bought Mya, but Ms. Harmina claimed that because she took care of Mya, that she should be awarded custody. Although all three justices took a pure property approach, Justice Hoegg’s dissent-in-part offered some compassionate words. Hoegg JA emphasized the importance of pet ownership litigation, and would have upheld the SCTD’s order for joint custody.
Brown v Larochelle, 2017 BCPC 115
Family Law
(2017) In this landmark Canadian case, Judge Cowling introduced the "best interests of the animal" approach, setting a precedent for future pet custody disputes. The case centered around a disagreement between former partners regarding the custody of their 3-year-old Korean Jindo dog, Luna. While traditional legal treatment views pets as personal property, Judge Cowling prioritized Luna's welfare over conventional property division, considering evidence of her strong bond with one party and flourishing well-being post-separation. Consequently, the claimant's plea for ownership was dismissed in favour of Luna's welfare.
MacDonald v Pearl, 2017 NSSM 5
Family Law
(2017) This Nova Scotia case exemplifies the relational approach in pet custody disputes. Adjudicator Augustus Richardson outlined ten factors, now foundational in the relational approach, to consider when determining ownership. These factors, including prior ownership, agreements, and other indicators of ownership, provide a framework for resolving disputes based on the relational dynamics between the parties involved.

Legislation

Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25

Other Resources

Supreme Court of Justice of Tucumán, Argentina – Ruling No. 149
In March 2024, the Supreme Court of Tucumán, a state in Argentina, decided an appeal discussing who has jurisdiction to determine a visit regime for a couple's dog under a divorce process. The Supreme Court ruled that animals, despite being considered things under the civil and commercial code, have been recently framed differently by legal scholars. Following the reasoning that animals are not things, the Supreme Court ruled that family courts have the jurisdiction to make a decision about a custody regime for a dog.
Is sharing family pet ‘best for all concerned’ in pet custody cases by V. Victoria Schroff
(2024) Law360 Canada.

Animal Law

Pet Custody

Library links

Libraries

Contact

Connect with us