What happens with family pets after separation?

After separation, parties often argue over what should happen with the family pet. In BC’s family law legislation, a companion animal is defined as an animal that is kept primarily for the purpose of companionship (this excludes guide and service dogs, animals kept as part of a business, and animals kept for agricultural purposes).

The court may declare who has ownership or possession of a companion animal under the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 97. The court must consider non-exhaustive factors including:

1. the circumstances in which the companion animal was acquired;
2. the extent to which each spouse cared for the companion animal;
3. any history of family violence;
4. the risk of family violence;
5. a spouse’s cruelty, or threat of cruelty, toward an animal;
6. the relationship that a child has with the companion animal;
7. the willingness and ability of each spouse to care for the basic needs of the companion animal; and
8. any other circumstances the court considers relevant.

In Kiss v Leung, 2024 BCSC 2335 the court stated that it could not make any orders for property division regarding a dog because the parties were never spouses under the Family Law Act.

In Gass v Hill, 2025 BCSC 1602, affirmed at 2025 BCSC 2076, the court held that it could make an interim order regarding the care and possession of a dog as long as the applicant establishes a prima facie case that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act. The court found that the factors favoured the dog remaining with one party in Cranbrook, as the other party had moved to the Lower Mainland and had not been in contact with the dog for 18 months. The appeal judge held that the best interests of a companion animal is a relevant circumstance to be considered.

In Bekar v Mordo, 2025 BCSC 1843 the court concluded that the dog should remain with one party, as the dog was adopted to provide that party with emotional support following her suicide attempt, they were very close, they slept in the same bed, the party took the dog everywhere including on trips to the salon, the party fed the dog, and the party took the dog to vet appointments.

In Palm v Macdonald, 2025 BCSC 2510 after separation, one of the parties had taken the dog from the other party’s home while the other party was at work. The court found that it was in the best interests of the dog to be returned, as the dog would be allowed to remain in the same home he had been in for most of his life, the home had a fenced yard that allowed the dog to run around, and there were other dogs there that would likely provide some companionship to the dog. The court did not condone a party removing a dog from another party’s home after separation.

In Glassen v Glassen, 2025 BCSC 640 the trial judge rejected one party’s submission that the parties should share the family dog equally because the Family Law Act, s 97(4.2) does not allow that. An order respecting a companion animal must not declare that spouses jointly own the companion animal or require the spouses to share possession of the companion animal.

These cases demonstrate that the law regarding companion animals is still evolving, but that courts factor in the best interests of the pet as an important consideration.

If you have questions about family law matters, feel free to contact Jimmy Peterson or any other member of our Family Law Group. You may stay informed by exploring our recent blog posts here.