Research Guides: Animal Law: Pet Custody

Pet Custody

Journal Articles

"Who Gets the Dog?": A Family Law Approach by Jodi Lazare
(2020) 45:2 Queen's Law Journal 287
Open Access

Legislation

Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25

Leading Cases

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.
Bond v McInulty, 2023 BCCRT 263
Civil 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
Civil 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
Civil 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
Civil 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.

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