Who gets the dog? What happens to the family pet after a breakup?

When relationships end, deciding who gets the family pet can get complicated

THE RELATIONSHIP IS over. You have figured out who is moving out, who gets the couch and who is cancelling the shared Netflix account.

Then someone asks the question nobody wants to answer.

Who gets the dog?

For millions of Canadian pet owners, that question is considerably more emotional than deciding who keeps the air fryer.

Canada was home to an estimated 7.2 million dogs and 8.2 million cats in 2024, according to the Canadian Animal Health Institute. Pets live in more than half of Canadian households.

Most Canadians would never think of referring to their dog as a “possession,” and yet when it comes to breaking up in Ontario (or, in fact, anywhere), that’s exactly how the law treats the animal.

According to Malerie Rose, senior counsel and owner of Rose Family Law in Mississauga, Ont., many couples feel like they’re living in a world where their pet is seen as nothing but property.

While Ontario courts view pets as possessions, this doesn’t necessarily mean the person who bought the pet gets to keep it. According to Manjeet Kaur, family lawyer and managing partner of Kaur Family Law in Brampton, Ont., in recent years, courts have taken a more holistic view of the relationship when it comes to dividing pets. Judges will now consider such factors as:

• who got the pet;
• how each party provided for the pet;
• whose name is on the veterinary records;
• the parties’ intentions regarding ownership.

The idea here is that while judges don’t have to worry about determining which household Fido prefers, they will use these various pieces of evidence to determine who should keep the pet.

No one tells you that walking your dog at 6 a.m. every winter morning is building an evidentiary record of ownership

Rose explains that when a couple breaks up and decides to go to court over who gets the family pet, they’re not always going back through one document that outlines the terms of ownership. Rather, they’re typically reviewing a series of facts that show who was primarily responsible for providing care for the pet.

This can include a variety of items, including:

• who purchased the pet;
• who was financially responsible for caring for the pet;
• whose name appears on veterinary records;
• whether there were any specific arrangements made by the couple regarding ownership.

Ultimately, while walking your dog every morning may seem insignificant, it can be a valuable piece of evidence to help prove ownership in the eyes of the law.

Coates v. Dickson: A couple agreed on most issues but were unable to agree on their two Labrador retrievers

When the Coates couple decided to separate, they agreed on most aspects of their separation, including their two Labrador retriever puppies. However, the couple couldn’t agree on who would keep either puppy.

Jazz and Jetta were both Labrador retrievers and were originally obtained by the couple during their marriage. Both partners had contributed significantly to the care of both puppies, financially and physically. As well, both partners had a significant bond with both puppies.

It seemed simple enough: each parent gets one puppy. Unfortunately, it wasn’t that easy.

After the couple went to court to settle their differences regarding their pets, the judge ruled that Jazz and Jetta were jointly owned by both partners. The judge then proceeded to divide the puppies accordingly: Jazz would stay with Ms. Dickson due to her need for protection, and Jetta would stay with Mr. Coates.

While the ultimate decision was somewhat arbitrary, it illustrates how difficult it can be to determine ownership of a pet. Ultimately, however, the decision shows that courts are willing to look beyond just who purchased the pet in determining ownership.

As Rose states, “the practical lesson is that couples have much more flexibility when they can work out an arrangement themselves.” Couples know their pets’ routines, personalities and needs far better than anyone else. Therefore, working out an arrangement before separating can provide greater peace of mind and fewer complications once they’ve gone their separate ways.

Layla: The case where the judge declined shared custody of a pet

Another case that came before an Ontario court was that of Duboff v. Simpson. This case concerned a rescue Boxer named Layla.

Mr. Duboff had adopted Layla and subsequently became her sole caregiver. After separating from his partner, Mr. Duboff sought access to Layla so he could continue to spend time with her. His ex-partner opposed his request for access, citing that Layla was hers alone.

Ultimately, the court sided with Mr. Duboff and granted him sole custody of Layla. Among the evidence presented were:

• the adoption documents showing that Mr. Duboff was listed as the adoptive parent;
• microchip information indicating that Mr. Duboff was registered as Layla’s owner;
• veterinary records listing Mr. Duboff as Layla’s owner;
• payment receipts showing that Mr. Duboff paid nearly all of Layla’s expenses;
• evidence showing that Mr. Duboff had acted as Layla’s primary caregiver since adopting her.

The judge refused to order a joint custody arrangement, stating that courts should avoid making decisions regarding custody of pets.

The case involving Tuxedo and its implications for future cases

Prior to Layla, there was a similar case involving a dog named Tuxedo. After separating, one partner sought joint custody of Tuxedo. Ultimately, the judge made his stance clear, stating that courts should not make decisions related to the custody of pets.

Unfortunately, Ms. Nicole received a vet bill for around US$2,000 for Chauncey and Rambo shortly after receiving full custody of them.

Miley Cyrus keeps her seven dogs during divorce from Liam Hemsworth

The celebrity world isn’t immune to disputes over pets. When Miley Cyrus divorced actor Liam Hemsworth, Vanity Fair reported that Cyrus kept her extensive menagerie during their breakup. This included:

• seven dogs;
• three cats;
• two horses;
• two miniature horses;
• a pig.

Hemsworth didn’t appear to dispute the arrangement.

Sharing the dog

Shared ownership of pets is certainly possible for former couples. Partners may choose to share responsibilities for a number of areas, such as:

• dog walking/grooming;
• food;
• veterinary expenses;
• caretaking duties.

You can be more creative with an agreement than with a judge

Manjeet Kaur states that couples can be incredibly resourceful in creating arrangements for shared ownership of pets. She believes that if couples can communicate effectively and reach mutually beneficial agreements, it is likely that they can find suitable alternatives to traditional court-ordered shared custody arrangements.