Who Gets the Pet After Separation? Alberta Confirms It's Not About the "Best Interests of the Cat" | Stokes Law Family
For many families, pets are more than property — they are companions, part of daily routines, and an important source of emotional connection. It is not uncommon for separating spouses or partners to feel that determining who keeps the family pet is just as significant as resolving financial issues.
A recent Alberta decision, Singh v Smith, 2025 ABKB 715, provides important guidance on how courts approach these disputes and confirms that, under current Alberta law, pet ownership after separation is not determined using the same legal principles that apply to parenting matters.
Background
The case involved a former couple who had lived together for several years and acquired four cats during their relationship. Following separation, each party sought sole possession of the animals.
The dispute became increasingly contentious and ultimately proceeded through litigation. At trial, the Court divided possession of the cats equally, awarding two cats to each party. One of the parties appealed and argued that the Court should have applied a "best interests of the cat" analysis similar to the "best interests of the child" framework used in parenting disputes.
The Legal Question: Are Pets Treated Like Children?
The Alberta Court of King's Bench rejected the argument that courts should determine pet disputes based on the animal's best interests.
Instead, the Court confirmed that pets continue to be treated as property under Alberta law. Although companion animals occupy a unique place in people's lives and owners often have strong emotional attachments to them, those considerations do not transform pet disputes into parenting disputes. The Court specifically distinguished parenthood from pet ownership.
How the Court Reached Its Decision
Rather than focusing on emotional attachment or perceived welfare outcomes for the cats, the Court examined factors more commonly associated with ownership and equitable property principles. Among the considerations were:
- whether the parties jointly acquired and cared for the pets;
- each party's contribution to expenses and ongoing care;
- periods of exclusive possession following separation;
- evidence supporting ownership and fairness of division; and
- whether there was a legal basis to award all animals to one party.
Ultimately, the Court found there was no basis to overturn the original decision and upheld the equal division of the cats between the parties.
Why This Decision Matters
Alberta courts do not recognize pet custody in the same way they recognize parenting arrangements for children. Unless there is a prior agreement between the parties, courts are more likely to focus on ownership evidence and property principles than on emotional attachment alone.
For individuals facing separation, practical steps may include:
- maintaining records of purchase or adoption;
- preserving veterinary and expense documentation;
- documenting caregiving responsibilities; and
- addressing pet ownership and possession in cohabitation, separation, or settlement agreements.
How Stokes Law Family Can Assist
Disputes involving pets can become emotionally difficult and legally complex, particularly where ownership, financial contributions, and family property issues overlap. Our team assists clients in evaluating ownership claims, negotiating practical resolutions, preparing separation agreements, and advocating for their interests when litigation becomes necessary.
While Singh v Smith confirms that Alberta law currently approaches pet disputes through a property framework, each family's circumstances remain unique and should be assessed individually.
Talk through your situation with our team
This article is general information about Alberta family law, not legal advice. Every family is different — book a free 30-minute consultation and we'll walk through how the law applies to you.
More blogs
Family Violence\ \ Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes New Tort of Intimate Partner Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia Privacy & Torts\ \ Can I Sue Someone for Sharing Intimate Images Without My Consent? Alberta Court Awards $92,500 Parenting\ \ Can Children Have Counsel? Independent Counsel for Children in DCE v DE, 2021 ABQB 909
This article was originally published on our companion site. For a free consultation, please book a virtual meeting.