As relationships end, the emotional fallout is rarely limited to the people involved. In a segment with CBC Radio, the spotlight turned to an unusual but increasingly discussed issue in family law: what happens to pets when couples separate. Triggered by a court decision involving a couple who each retained one dog after their relationship broke down, the discussion explored whether pet “custody” belongs in the courtroom at all.
Laura Paris, associate lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, joined the conversation to explain how Ontario family law currently treats pets during a separation or divorce. While many people view pets as family members, the legal framework tells a very different story. Laura provided practical insight into why these disputes are rarely litigated, how courts approach them when they are, and what separating couples should realistically expect. Her commentary highlights the gap between emotional attachment and legal reality, offering families clarity at a time when emotions often run high.
“When it comes to the court, the only thing the court’s going to make an order on or a decision on is who owns the dog, because they are property.”
— Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer, Shulman & Partners LLP
Disputes over pets can be deeply emotional, particularly for couples who view their animals as children or integral family members. However, as Laura explains, Ontario family law does not treat pets the same way it treats children. Instead, pets are legally classified as property. This distinction shapes how disputes are resolved and why courts are reluctant to engage in what many people refer to as “pet custody.”
Laura noted that it is highly unusual for pet-related disputes to reach court. The primary reason is cost. Litigation is expensive, and when clients weigh the legal fees against the outcome, pursuing a trial over a pet rarely makes financial sense. Courts themselves are also hesitant to allocate judicial resources to these matters, particularly when they would require ongoing oversight similar to parenting arrangements.
When a dispute does reach court, the analysis is narrow. Judges focus on ownership rather than emotional bonds or caregiving roles. The starting point is typically who purchased the pet. In cases where one party paid for the animal and the pet resided in that person’s home, courts have found this sufficient to determine ownership. Claims that a pet was intended as a gift must be supported by evidence, and without it, the purchase record often decides the matter.
That said, Laura emphasized that separating couples are not without options. Outside of court, parties are free to negotiate their own arrangements. These can include shared schedules, shared expenses, or even informal agreements where pets move with children between homes. Some couples establish joint accounts to cover veterinary bills and other costs, avoiding ongoing conflict.
However, Laura cautioned against expecting courts to formalize these arrangements. Introducing concepts like support payments or “best interests” analyses for pets would significantly expand the scope of family law and open the door to countless similar claims. For this reason, courts consistently draw a firm line between children and animals, regardless of how meaningful pets are to their owners.
Ultimately, Laura’s guidance is pragmatic. While acknowledging the emotional importance of pets, she encourages clients to seek negotiated solutions rather than litigation. From a legal perspective, collaboration remains the most effective and least costly path forward.
Listen to the full CBC Radio segment here.
This media appearance is part of Shulman & Partners LLP’s ongoing contributions to Canadian family law discussions. Explore more of our media features in our In the Media archive.