The Relationship Ends. The Leash Remains.

Keeping Pet Disputes Out of Court

When a couple separates, deciding where a pet will live can be deeply personal. One person may have completed the adoption paperwork, while the other arranged vet appointments or handled most of the daily care. Both may consider the animal a member of the family.

However (dog moms beware—this one may hurt) being part of the family does not give a pet the same legal status as a child. Ontario courts generally approach disagreements about pets as ownership disputes, not parenting disputes. Understanding that difference can help couples make realistic plans before a disagreement reaches court.^[1]

Children vs pets: an important legal distinction

For children, the court’s guiding consideration is the child’s best interests. Under the federal Divorce Act and Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act, parenting decisions must focus on the child’s circumstances, with primary consideration given to their physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. Children are not property to be divided between parents.^[2]

For pets, Ontario decisions such as Coates v. Dickson and Duboff v. Simpson generally frame the issue as who owns the animal and is entitled to possess it. Although the court may examine care arrangements as evidence of ownership, that is not the same as deciding which home would serve a child’s best interests.^[1]

The distinction is between a child-centred parenting decision and a property-ownership decision. Calling an arrangement “pet custody” does not make the legal rules for children apply to the animal^[1][2].

What do the Courts say?

More complex than a simple purchase receipt

In Coates v. Dickson, the court preferred a broader assessment that also considered agreements about ownership, whether the pet was a gift, responsibility for care, and contributions toward expenses.^[3]

The lesson is not that the person who takes the most walks automatically wins. Rather, ownership may depend on several pieces of evidence considered together. Caregiving can help explain the parties’ relationship with the pet, but it does not replace the ownership question with a “parenting test”.^[3]

Shared affection ≠ shared ownership

In Duboff v. Simpson, the court likewise distinguished attachment to a dog from legal ownership. It considered ownership evidence and declined to impose the shared arrangement requested by the person it found was not the owner.^[4]

These decisions illustrate why relying on assumptions can be risky. One person may believe that sharing care means sharing ownership, while the other believes the pet was solely theirs all this time.

A preventive approach

Before adopting a pet, moving in together, or getting married, discuss whether the animal will belong to one person or both. Where one person already owns the pet, clarify whether that arrangement is intended to continue.

Consider what financial contributions will mean. Are payments for food and veterinary care ordinary household expenses, or do both people intend them to reflect shared ownership? Where a pet is a gift, make clear who is giving it and who is receiving it.

For example, a couple might agree that a cat brought into the relationship will remain one partner’s property, even though both contribute to its care. Another couple might agree that a newly adopted dog will be jointly owned and make a separate plan for what happens if separation occurs.

The purpose is to replace assumptions with an expressed intention.

The spoken word is ephemeral, the written word persists (a.k.a put that thing in writing)

Ontario’s Family Law Act allows property arrangements to be addressed in marriage contracts, cohabitation agreements, and separation agreements. Which agreement is appropriate depends on the couple’s circumstances.^[5]

Ask a lawyer to address the pet expressly rather than assuming that a general clause about household belongings will resolve every question.

A useful discussion can begin by covering main areas:

• Ownership and residence: Who will own the pet after separation, and where will the animal live? Is any shared care intended?

• Care and expenses: Who will pay for routine costs, insurance, and emergency treatment? Who may authorize veterinary care?

• Future changes: What happens if someone moves, can no longer care for the animal, or wants to change the arrangement?

These are planning suggestions, not promises that every proposed term will be enforceable. A lawyer should review both the wording and the remedies that might be available if a party does not conform with the terms of the agreement.

Be particularly careful with shared-care arrangements

Shared care may be something both people wish to negotiate. Before committing to it, consider how exchanges (think about how often you really want to see your ex), transportation, communication, and disagreements would work.

Also discuss a fallback arrangement: what happens if one person moves far away, repeatedly misses exchanges, or no longer wishes to participate?

Remember: An agreement between adults about sharing a pet is not the same thing as a court order allocating parenting time with a child.

Keep records

Consider keeping adoption or purchase documents, written communications about ownership, veterinary invoices, insurance records, and registration information together.

Because the ownership inquiry can extend beyond the original purchase, keep both acquisition records and relevant information about later agreements and care arrangements.^[3] Avoid assuming that one name on one document will necessarily answer every ownership question.

Take it seriously

Give each person time to review the terms and obtain advice from their own lawyer. Independent legal advice can help identify unclear language and explain what each person is agreeing to.

The aim should be an agreement both people understand: not a document signed quickly to end an uncomfortable conversation.

Negotiation or mediation before litigation

Where it is safe and appropriate, negotiation or mediation can provide a setting for discussing ownership, expenses, and a practical care arrangement.

Prepare for the discussion by identifying the questions that actually need answers. Is ownership disputed? Are both people willing to consider one permanent home? Is the disagreement mainly about expenses or continued contact?

A specific proposal gives the conversation a clearer starting point than competing statements about who loves the animal more.

Safety before settlement

Avoiding court should never mean accepting intimidation or unsafe contact. The Divorce Act includes threats to harm an animal, and actual harm to an animal, within its definition of family violence when the statutory conditions are met.

Where a pet is being used to threaten or control someone, obtain legal and safety advice before arranging exchanges or negotiating directly.

Why Choose HCLS?

Whether you are planning ahead or navigating a breakup, the starting point is a clear conversation about ownership, care, and expectations.

At Home Counsel Legal Services (HCLS), we can help you understand your options and prepare or review a cohabitation, marriage, or separation agreement. For your pet, that means addressing practical questions: where they will live, who will cover expenses, and what happens if circumstances change. We can also provide independent legal advice on an agreement prepared by your partner’s lawyer before you sign.

Where a disagreement already exists, we can support you through negotiations or provide advice during mediation, where appropriate. The focus is on helping you make informed decisions and work toward an agreement without unnecessary court proceedings. Contact HCLS to discuss your circumstances and the support available to you.

Coates v. Dickson — full decision · Duboff v. Simpson — full decision · Divorce Act · Children’s Law Reform Act · Family Law Act