(Henderson v. Henderson, 2017 SKQB 282) Many of us treat our pets like another member of the family. They provide us companionship, unconditional love, and are always happy to see us.
While one may feel inclined to treat the family pet like a child of the marriage,
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench recently decided strongly against doing so and taking the matter before the courts. In hearing an application for interim possession of two family dogs, Justice Richard Danyliuk ruled that dogs, while treated as members of the family, are considered property in the eyes of the law. Danyliuk J. states, at para 23: “My present task is not to act with emotion or to validate the personal perspective of pet owners within the legal context. Rather, it is to interpret and then apply the law. And for legal purposes, there can be no doubt: Dogs are property.”
Danyliuk J. also uses his own examples to illustrate the disconnect between dogs being like children; for example, he states that when our children are sick, we do not engage in a cost/benefit analysis to determine if it is worth giving them medical treatment.
With the most emphasis, however, is Danyliuk J.’s comments on having to hear the matter. At para 4, he states:
“In a justice system that is incredibly busy, where delay has virtually become systemic, where there are cases involving child welfare and family matters that wait months for adjudication, these parties have chosen to throw this dispute into the mix. I am sure that to them, this is the most important matter. But it must be kept in perspective and measured against other matters, many of which inarguably are of more importance … To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view, such applications should be discouraged.”
Danyliuk J.’s decision is generally consistent with how courts have treated this issue in the past; however, it may be a flawed approach. In some cases, it is possible that there is more at issue. For example, family law cases could involve animal abuse or competing claims to an important companion animal that treats a spouse’s medical disorder. Or, the animals in question could have fulfilled important and valuable roles in a marriage where children were not possible. Such cases should not simply be dismissed as humorous or merely taking up the court’s time. Perhaps it is time for the courts and legislature to truly acknowledge how serious of an issue this can be in the dynamic of a family law conflict, rather than simply dismissing the issue as “wasteful.”
When dealing with separation or divorce, there are significant issues to be determined. If you are going through or preparing for separation or divorce, please call for a consultation with one of our experienced family law lawyers.
Geoffrey Kowalski
Articled Clerk
902-368-7824
geoff.kowalski@keymurraylaw.com
Legal information appearing in this article and elsewhere on Key Murray Law’s website is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for or replace any legal or other professional advice. If you have specific concerns or a situation in which you require legal advice, you should consult directly with one of our lawyers.