NewsTalk 1010: Post Breakup: Who Gets the Dog? - Featuring Laura Paris, Shulman & Partners

A breakup can be painful on its own, but when a shared pet is involved, emotions can escalate quickly. In a discussion on NewsTalk 1010, Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, weighed in on a dispute where one former partner had to sue in small claims to get her dog back after the other refused to return the pet. The case highlights a reality many separating couples do not expect: even if a pet feels like family, the legal system often treats pets as property. Laura also emphasized how everyday communications like texts and social media posts can become important evidence in disputes, especially when the facts are contested. For families navigating separation in Ontario, the segment offers practical reminders about documentation, clarity, and avoiding conflict where possible.

“The issue is that the court doesn't see it that way. So while we may look at our pets in a manner that they are akin or equivalent to a child or close enough, the court views pets as property.”
— Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP

The segment explored a post-breakup conflict over a dog named Stella and why these disputes can become surprisingly intense. The story involved a couple who started dating in 2019. The dog was purchased for $500, and later the parties separated. While both claimed they were better suited to care for Stella, the core legal question was not who loved the dog more. The focus became who could prove ownership and whether the dog had been gifted.

Laura explained that, as emotionally charged as these situations are, courts generally approach pets differently than children. Many people view a pet as part of the family, especially couples without children. In practice, Laura noted, pet disputes can feel similar to custody disputes because of the attachment and the role the pet plays in daily life. The difference is that the court’s framework typically treats pets as property, which means ownership and intention matter more than caregiving arguments.

In discussing how the case turned on evidence, Laura pointed to the importance of expressed intention. The segment described text messages suggesting the purchaser intended to donate or gift the dog to the other party. Laura explained that where there is a clear intention to gift, that can significantly affect the analysis. By contrast, if those conversations had never occurred, the purchaser would often have the stronger claim to ownership.

The discussion also broadened into a practical takeaway for separating couples in Ontario: texts, social media posts, and similar communications can be used in court. Laura described how often these records appear in family law, especially in situations where the facts are disputed and it becomes a he said, she said dynamic. Screenshots, messages, and posts may help provide a clearer timeline of what was said and done. She also gave examples of how social media can undermine a legal position, such as when someone claims they cannot work but posts content that contradicts that claim.

Finally, Laura noted that Ontario courts have addressed pet issues before, and the overall message tends to be that people should try to resolve pet arrangements themselves. If the court has to decide, the outcome may feel unsatisfying because the legal lens does not fully reflect the emotional reality for pet owners.

Listen to the full NewsTalk 1010 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.