This is a civil dispute relating to custody of a dog named Peanut. The two parties were involved in a romantic relationship when they bought Peanut, and after they separated and the respondent moved out, the parties agreed to a time-sharing arrangement. The arrangement broke down after several months, and the applicant asserts that since late October 2022, the respondent has withheld Peanut from her.
The applicant is asking for an order for “full custody” of Peanut in exchange for a buyout equivalent to the $875 the respondent paid toward Peanut’s purchase price. The respondent denies the applicant’s claims, stating that the applicant kept trying to unreasonably change the parties’ time-sharing arrangement, so they decided to keep Peanut until the parties had “a legal agreement in place”. Because the Family Law Act only applies to those who are legally married or in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years, the Civil Tribunal had jurisdiction over this matter because they had been together for less than two years.
The issues at dispute were:
Although the tribunal acknowledged that the courts recognized the unique place pets occupy in peoples’ lives (para. 16), it affirmed that pets fall under personal property, making it question of who owns the pet rather than who should have “custody” of them. It also upheld the Family Law Act changes in early 2024, where the willingness and ability of each spouse to care for the pet’s basic needs, cruelty or threat of cruelty towards a pet, family violence, and other factors must be considered although the Act did not apply to this dispute, but because those changes reflect developments around the common law “best interests of the dog assessment” and courts that have increasingly considered animal welfare and the animal’s needs in considering ownership claims (para. 18).
After examining Peanut’s best interests and finding no evidence or allegations of animal cruelty or threat of cruelty by either party, the tribunal determined that Peanut was jointly owned. It also took into account who had paid and cared for Peanut, as well as the human-animal bond between the applicant’s adult daughter, and found that the respondent’s behaviour in withholding possession of Peanut of significant importance and indicates that they were unwilling or unable to consider whether their actions were in Peanut’s best interests, given the existing bonds between Peanut and the applicant’s family members (para. 28).
Weighing the evidence, the tribunal awarded ownership to the applicant and ordered that the respondent return Peanut to her within 30 days
https://canlii.ca/t/k509h