Who Gets the Dog? BC Courts Reconsider Pets After Separation in Bayat v. Mavedati

In an earlier blog post, “Fighting over Fluffy: Who Gets to Keep the Family Pet?”, we discussed how British Columbia courts historically treated pets as personal property under the Family Law Act.

Since then, the legal landscape has changed significantly. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Bayat v. Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619, is one of the first major cases interpreting the Family Law Act’s inclusion of “companion animals” after changes were made to the legislation in early 2024.

The Facts

Bayat involved Stella, a golden retriever purchased during the parties’ relationship.

The parties began living together on April 1, 2020, separated on February 9, 2023, and purchased Stella on August 21, 2020. The claimant was a nurse. The respondent was a veterinarian.

The claimant applied for an order giving her exclusive care of Stella. The respondent opposed that application.

Although Stella’s purchase receipt was in the respondent’s name, the claimant produced an e-transfer for exactly half of Stella’s purchase price made at the time Stella was acquired. The claimant also provided evidence that she contributed financially to Stella’s care over the years.

The Court was satisfied that the claimant had paid and contributed to Stella’s care.

The New Companion Animal Provisions

The Court noted that the law had recently changed. Section 97(4.1) of the Family Law Act now requires the Supreme Court, when making an order about a companion animal, to consider factors including:

  • the circumstances in which the animal was acquired;
  • the extent to which each spouse cared for the animal;
  • any history or risk of family violence;
  • cruelty or threats of cruelty toward an animal;
  • the relationship between a child and the animal;
  • each spouse’s willingness and ability to meet the animal’s basic needs; and
  • any other relevant circumstances.

This is a significant development. Pets are not treated the same as children, but they are no longer approached only as ordinary property.

The Court’s Decision

The Court ordered an interim week-on/week-off sharing arrangement for Stella pending further resolution of the dispute.

In doing so, the Court emphasized that companion animals are no longer viewed purely as “chattels” (i.e. property) in the traditional sense.

Importantly, the Court focused heavily on:

  • the parties’ caregiving history,
  • the emotional relationship with the dog,
  • and the practical welfare of the animal.

This reflects a substantial departure from older cases that focused primarily on pets as property.

Why the Decision Matters

One of the most notable aspects of Bayat is that the Family Law Act also contains provisions limiting the Court’s ability to order permanent shared ownership or possession arrangements for companion animals.

As a result, Bayat raises an interesting tension:

  • while courts are increasingly recognizing the emotional significance of pets,
  • the legislation still stops short of treating pets like children for parenting purposes.

The decision suggests that interim sharing arrangements may still be available in appropriate cases, even if permanent “custody-style” orders remain restricted.

The decision does not mean pets are now treated exactly like children. They are not. But it does mean that courts may now consider factors that go beyond strict legal title, including caregiving history, the parties’ conduct, and the animal’s well-being.

The case is also notable because the Court was prepared to make a temporary shared-care arrangement, despite there being a historical reluctance to treat pets like subjects of custody litigation.

More Litigation Over Pets Is Likely Coming

As pets increasingly occupy the role of family members in many households, disputes over companion animals are becoming more common in family litigation.

Bayat is likely only the beginning of a developing body of case law interpreting BC’s new legislation. While pets are still legally classified as property, courts are increasingly recognizing that companion animals involve emotional and relational considerations that differ from ordinary assets.

As this area of law continues to evolve, separating spouses should seek legal advice early where disputes involving pets arise.

At Richter Trial Lawyers, we assist clients throughout British Columbia with family law disputes. Contact us for a free consultation.

Go to top