NewsTalk 1010: Who Should Get the Dog? - Featuring Laura Paris, Shulman & Partners

In a segment on NewsTalk 1010, host Jim Richards spoke with Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, about a high-profile Ontario court case involving a bitter dispute over a dog. The case, which drew national attention, centered on whether a deceased man’s former partner was entitled to keep his beloved pet. The conflict raised deeper questions about how Canadian courts define pet ownership, the intersection of family and estate law, and how the emotional realities of companionship often clash with the legal system’s black-and-white rules. Laura offered valuable context on how Ontario law currently treats pets as property and discussed whether legislative change could be on the horizon.

“When asking a judge to apply the law in this circumstance, common sense doesn’t always prevail and sometimes the law, you know, as much as we like to believe that it’s rooted in common sense, sometimes it isn’t and it’s a little bit more black and white than we’d like to accept.”
— Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP

The story began when a young woman claimed ownership of her late partner’s dog, asserting that the animal had been a gift and that the two were in a common-law relationship. The man’s sisters, who were beneficiaries of his estate, disputed her claim. With no written proof of ownership or evidence that the dog was a gift, the court ruled that the dog legally belonged to the deceased and therefore passed to his heirs.

Laura explained that while this was technically an estate law matter, it parallels how similar issues arise in family law during separations. Under Ontario law, pets are classified as property rather than family members, meaning ownership, not emotional attachment or caregiving, determines where they end up. “Common sense doesn’t always prevail,” Laura noted, emphasizing that while most people see pets as loved ones, courts in Ontario still view them as assets like furniture or cars.

She highlighted that British Columbia has taken steps to modernize this approach by allowing judges to consider who primarily cares for the pet, who pays for its needs, and who shares the strongest emotional bond. This evolving view treats pets as sentient companions rather than mere possessions. However, Laura cautioned that Ontario has not yet followed suit. Lawmakers may be waiting to see how BC’s reforms play out before introducing similar changes.

She also pointed out that in family law, courts sometimes indirectly consider pets’ welfare, particularly when children are involved. A child’s emotional well-being can influence a judge’s view of who should retain the family pet. Still, she acknowledged that the justice system must balance compassion with efficiency, as opening the door to full-scale “custody battles” over animals could strain already overburdened courts.

Ultimately, this case underscores a growing tension between legal tradition and societal values. As Canadians increasingly view pets as family members, the law may need to evolve to reflect the emotional realities of modern households.