More than property, less than kids: How B.C. family law treats companion animals

Law360 Canada (September 25, 2026, 12:08 PM EDT) --

V. Victoria Shroff

In 2024, British Columbia took a seismic step away from treating family pets as ordinary property under the law when couples separate. Amendments to B.C.'s Family Law Act took effect on Jan.15, 2024 and introduced specific factors that courts must consider when determining which spouse should be granted ownership or possession of the family's companion animal. (See: B.C. Gov News.) 

Since the new laws were introduced, we have seen the emergence of a new standard: the ‘best interests of all concerned’ approach

I was honoured with an invitation by the B.C. government to provide animal law input into the family law amendments when it was being formulated and I urged legislators to consider any amendments through a relational contextual lens and to see animals as sentient beings; i.e., to use the “best interests for all concerned standard” as a useful analytical lens through which to understand considerations relevant to determining which party should be awarded the family pet. (See: B.C. has set up a family model for other jurisdictions across Canada: lawyer.

Rather than reducing an inquiry to narrow markers of ownership, the standard recognizes that companion animals occupy a distinctive relational position within the family and that their disposition requires consideration of the interests and relationships of all family members. Through this broader, relational analysis where companion animals are seen as sentient beings, not bare property, the court considers the companion animal and their welfare in context of the whole family alongside the circumstances and interests of the spouses and, where relevant, children. Of importance, the standard applying to pets is also not be confused with the separate 'best interests of the child' test used in parenting disputes. When I teach animal law at UBC's Allard School of Law, and at Capilano University and speak at conferences on companion animals and ownership, I highlight why this new standard is a useful descriptive lens for understanding the amended family legislation. In Chapter 7 of my textbook, Canadian Animal Law (2025, 2nd Ed., Lexis Nexis), I noted that the “‘best interests for all concerned’ is the effect of the indicia, it is not set out specifically with that wording in the statute,” but through the standard the relational and contextual aspects of the whole family are considered and pet ownership is examined from a more holistic and modern legal framework.

Seismic shift for companion animals in the law from ownership of chattel to relationships and care

While companion animals are still classified as property under the law, they are rightly elevated above bare property and seen as sentient beings. Before the amendments, disputes over family pets were generally approached through traditional property principles.

Both the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Provincial Court of British Columbia have the jurisdiction to decide these cases. Under the Family Law Act, a judge must consider the following eight factors in deciding who will get possession of the family pet:

• the circumstances in which the animal was acquired
• the extent to which each spouse cared for the animal
• any history of family violence
• the risk of family violence
• a spouse's cruelty, or threat of cruelty, toward an animal
• the relationship that a child has with the animal
• the willingness and ability of each spouse to care for the basic needs of the animal
• any other circumstances the court considers relevant

These above factors shift the inquiry away from a simplistic question of “Who bought the dog or cat?” as if the companion was a mere toaster and toward salient analysis questions concerning caregiving, attachment, family relationships and the animal's past and ongoing needs.

Family violence considerations add another important legislative dimension

A key consideration baked into the legislation is the “violence link” as violence and coercive control of humans and family pets is all too pervasive and intertwined. Companion animals are frequently targeted as a means of abuse or coercive control within abusive or coercive relationships, including circumstances in which concern for a pet’s safety affects a person’s decisions about leaving the relationship or seeking protection. In 2026, I was invited to be on panel analyzing B.C.'s companion animal amendments two years post-enactment along with the attorney general and deputy premier, Niki Sharma, and as we discussed family violence, including the involvement of companion animals, she mentioned that more legislative reforms involving the family pet and coercive control are in the works. (Professor Maneesha Deckha and I both shared our views on companion animals in the family setting. See: "Who gets Rover? Lawyers discuss pet custody in divorce at UVic panel event".) Pairing violence and coercive control in the context of pet ownership echoes a trend that is gaining global momentum in parliaments. (See: Protecting pets and domestic abuse: The urgent need for Ruby’s Law.)

The family pet should not be seen in a legal silo

Any ownership analysis of the family pet must recognize that the welfare interests of a companion animal cannot be viewed in a legal silo. Ownership and care must be seen in the context of their caregivers or owners when deciding who gets to keep the family pet when a family relationship breaks down. A pet cannot be seen in isolation, as it is the caregivers and owners who create the conditions in which the pet lives within the family. That is why is it is overly simplistic to refer to the “best interests” of the family pet as it fails to account for the broader context of care of the pet within the particular family. As I argued in court not long ago in an unreported case, the family pet should not be seen in a legal silo as companion animals are part of the family, and will remain wholly dependent on their family for their welfare for life. Unlike a child who will typically go to school, grow up, get a job and leave the family nest, the family pet stays at home, and will likely need increased care as they age. The family pet remains fully dependent on their humans for food, vet care, socialization, trips to the park, etc.

Though the developing case law rightly suggests that the animal’s own welfare can be an important consideration within B.C.’s broader statutory framework, such considerations must be seen along with other statutory factors, such as how the companion animal was cared for, acquired, how enriched their environment is or is not and a child’s relationship with the animal — all of these factors concern the pet within a wider family context.

2025: The first major final decision in B.C. on companion animals in the family setting

The significance of the amended legislation became clear in Glassen v. Glassen, 2025 BCSC 640, the first reported final ruling applying the amended companion animal provisions at trial. (For more on the Glassen case as reported in the media, see: For the 1st time, B.C. judge awards custody of family pet in divorce case.)

Glassen involved the family dog, Toba and included an analysis of Toba’s relationship with the family child. The case illustrates the application of the relational “best interest for all concerned standard” at the heart of B.C.’s new regime.

Also key: when a court decides who gets the family pet, the remedy is exclusive ownership or possession to one party only; the legislation does not permit court-ordered joint ownership or shared possession. Spouses may, however, agree privately to share ownership or possession. As I note in Chapter 7 of Canadian Animal Law, joint ownership may be one of the worst outcomes for the welfare of a family pet and their humans but it depends on the particular context of the family in question.

More BCSC B.C. decisions in 2025 and 2026 involving the family pet

Fortunately, most disputes involving the family pet are settled out of court. This is consistent across both my animal law practice and the broader experiences shared by my family law colleagues, but there are a few reported decisions that provide learning guide posts.

In Bekar v. Mordo, 2025 BCSC 1843, the court considered the parties’ respective caregiving roles in an interlocutory application deciding who should retain the family dog, Frankie. Evidence that one spouse fed Frankie, arranged veterinary care and handled his day-to-day needs was significant.

In Palm v. Macdonald, 2025 BCSC 2510, the court considered an interim application regarding Charlie the dog’s established home environment after one party removed him from the other’s residence The decision is notable for the court's disapproval of unilateral removal of a family pet following separation.

These decisions show courts moving the dial beyond a purely property-based assessment of ownership while continuing to operate within the statutory limitation against court-ordered shared possession.

In Kennedy v. Dubois, 2026 BCSC 723, the court considered Fergus the dog’s welfare as an important factor in determining possession, while also emphasizing the other aspects prescribed by the Family Law Act (FLA). Mario Dubois sought sole interim possession of Fergus or shared possession. In dismissing his application, the court made some salient observations including distinguishing earlier cases, including Bayat v. Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619 (for more on the Bayat case, see: Judge orders shared custody of pet dog under new B.C. law, in light of the statutory prohibition on court ordered shared possession.)


In R.K.S. v. G.S.S., 2026 BCSC 1608, the court applied the legislative requirements with an additional “best interests” welfare overlay concerning Spike, the family dog, who had an ongoing medical condition. The circumstances included one party's withdrawal from the dog’s care and was clearly relevant to the determination of who should retain Spike. The court pointed to the elevated status of companion animals from mere property.


Companion animals remain within a legal framework associated with property, but the decision-making process increasingly recognizes that a dog or cat is not simply an interchangeable household asset or a commodity, as was the case all too often in the past. Though B.C. courts may not have expressly articulated the standard as the “best interests of all concerned,” both Kennedy and R.K.S., where Kennedy was considered, appear to apply this approach, and the developing jurisprudence points toward a framework that incorporates it.

More than property, less than kids: How B.C. family law treats companion animals

B.C.’s approach reflects a broader, modernized legal and social understanding about the status of companion animals and represents a meaningful change while stopping at transforming companion animals into children under the law. The evolving framework demonstrates that companion animals are in a liminal place as neither traditional property nor do the “best interest of the child” (or overly simplistic “best interests of the pet”). More than property, but less than kids, companion animals remain legally treated within the property provisions of the Family Law Act as a special type of family member while the court balances a wider set of relational and welfare-related circumstances within the context of the whole family.

Recognizing pets as sentient beings and more than bare property matters. A lot. This legal shift has been groundbreaking for me as an animal law lawyer of over 25 years. I apply these vital contextual factors to companion animal cases both within and beyond family law, as well as throughout my animal law mediation practice.

In sum, B.C.’s approach to companion animal disputes may be descriptively characterized as a “best interests for all concerned” standard that recognizes companion animals’ place within the family. This approach can be understood as a significant shift beyond their characterization as mere property such as a toaster toward a more modern and nuanced relational model that accounts for their role as family companions while retaining a clear statutory boundary. The result is a legal framework situated at the intersection of animal law, property law, and family law.

To learn more about companion animals and the law, register for our B.C. Courthouse Library webinar on Oct. 6: Animal Law Beyond the Bark — Navigating Pet Custody & Dangerous Dog Cases. Presenters: Regional Administrative Judge Rita Bowry, and Provincial Court Judge George Leven, and V. Victoria Shroff, KC. Registration information here.

V. Victoria Shroff, K.C., is one of Canada’s first and longest-serving animal law practitioners and the longest-serving in B.C. Shroff practises animal law in Vancouver at Shroff and Associates. She is also an adjunct professor of animal law at UBC’s Allard School of Law and faculty, Capilano University. Shroff is an associate fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. Recognized locally and internationally as an animal law expert, she is frequently interviewed by the media. The second edition of her book, Canadian Animal Law, was published in 2025 and is available at LexisNexis Canada. www.shroffanimallaw.com | LinkedIn.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.