 |
| V. Victoria Shroff |
Glassen v. Glassen, 2025 BCSC 640 demonstrated how upper courts decide who gets ownership or possession (a.k.a. informally as “pet custody”) of the family companion animal upon separation.
The Glassen case: A family dog called Toba
The family law case of Glassen involved issues relating to the parties’ daughter, division of property and debt, and access and ownership of the family dog, Toba. Mr. Glassen sought to have regular access to Toba, who the parties acquired around the same time their child “K” was born.
After separating, both parties tried to share access to Toba on a weekly basis. But when Ms. Glassen’s work schedule changed, she asked to adjust the arrangement due to her employment. A compromise could not be reached, and Ms. Glassen eventually told her former partner that she could no longer continue with the time-sharing schedule pertaining to Toba. Mr. Glassen then accused her of breaching their informal agreement.
Pets are no longer deemed exclusively property under family law
The companion animal aspect of the dispute in Glassen v. Glassen centred around access and ownership of Toba. Companion animals are not mere property; they are sentient family members and should be treated as such. The 2024 legislative amendments to B.C.’s family law statute treat animals as more than chattel. (See Who gets to keep the pet after a breakup?) Under the 2024 amendments to B.C.’s Family Law Act, companion animals — pets kept primarily for companionship — are no longer considered inanimate property to be divided like furniture or toasters. When married couples split up, deciding who keeps the beloved pet is often one of the most emotionally difficult parts of separation. (See Groundbreaking changes to B.C.’s pet custody laws.)
British Columbia’s FLA s. 97 sets out a list of relational factors judges must consider when determining who should keep the family pet. In the Glassen case, we can see the application of these factors including but not limited to:
• The extent to which each spouse cared for the companion animal;
• The relationship between a child and the companion animal.
• The relationship between a child and the companion animal.
Sharing the family pet will not be ordered by the court: Limitation on court orders in companion animal disputes under B.C.’s family legislation clearly demonstrated in Glassen
Under s. 97 (4.2) of the FLA, there are limitations on court orders involving companion animals.
An order respecting a companion animal must not
(aa) declare that the spouses jointly own the companion animal, or
(bb) require the spouses to share possession of the companion animal.
(bb) require the spouses to share possession of the companion animal.
The legislation requires that a court can only make an order for ownership and possession of a companion animal for one spouse, and the common law in Canada, for the most part, has evolved along similar lines over many years. While a court may acknowledge joint ownership of a pet during the parties’ relationship, courts will generally reject a finding of joint ownership (see the often cited Gardiner-Simpson v. Cross, 2008 NSSM 78) for who gets the pet upon dissolution of the human relationship. Canadian courts have traditionally exhibited reluctance in granting joint possession or ownership orders in relation to companion animals chiefly due to concerns regarding the likelihood of protracted or ongoing conflict between the parties.
Sharing family pet usually fails the ‘best interests for all concerned’ test
Sharing the family’s companion animal after separation often fails to meet what I call the contextual “best interests for all concerned” standard or test. In other words, joint ownership or custody of a companion animal is rarely ideal for any of the parties or the animal once the human relationship ends. Pets are frequently weaponized as part of the interpersonal conflict between the spouses. Joint access, or sharing companion animals, typically does not meet the “best interests” or needs of either the pet or the people involved, and in my experience, such arrangements can lead to ongoing conflict, create instability and ultimately may compromise animal welfare. (See Is sharing family pet ‘best for all concerned’ in pet custody cases?)
The 2025 decision of Glassen brings clarity following an earlier case of Bayat v. Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619, where the court made an interim order allowing shared custody of a dog called Stella. On its face, and with all due respect, that decision seemed to be misaligned with the legislation’s prohibition on shared possession of a family pet under s. 97(4.2). The Glassen ruling aligns with B.C.’s family law legislation: courts must not make orders for joint ownership or shared time with the family’s companion animal.
Mr. Glassen asked the court to order “regular access to the family dog Toba” (para. 9), but the court plainly stated that it “does not have jurisdiction to make the order Mr. Glassen seeks” (para. 174).
The Family Law Act clearly prohibits orders for joint ownership or shared possession of a companion animal. The court further noted that based on the evidence, it would “decline to make such an order in this case in any event.” In applying the contextual “best interests for all concerned” standard in determining who would get possession of Toba, the court considered the best interests of “K,” the child of the marriage, and her bond to Toba, the actions of the parties and how they all interrelated. The court noted the difficulties in sharing Toba after the dissolution and factored in Mr. Glassen’s “rigid unwillingness to accommodate alternative arrangements for the exchange of Toba” (para. 178) and the fact that Ms. Glassen had sole possession of Toba since December 2023.
In dismissing Mr. Glassen’s application under the FLA for ongoing shared time or access to Toba, the court noted:
[179] “I am concerned that more frequent contact between the parties for the purposes of exchanging Toba may lead to more conflict between the parties, which is ultimately not in K’s best interest.”
[180] “While I accept Mr. Glassen’s evidence that K says she misses Toba when she is with him, I am of the view that on a 2-2-3 schedule K has sufficient access to and time with Toba at Ms. Glassen’s home to ensure her secure connection to her dog. Moreover, the risk to K’s best interest of the increased conflict that may arise between her parents from frequent contact to exchange Toba outweighs the benefit of K being with Toba 100% of the time that she is with her parents.”
[180] “While I accept Mr. Glassen’s evidence that K says she misses Toba when she is with him, I am of the view that on a 2-2-3 schedule K has sufficient access to and time with Toba at Ms. Glassen’s home to ensure her secure connection to her dog. Moreover, the risk to K’s best interest of the increased conflict that may arise between her parents from frequent contact to exchange Toba outweighs the benefit of K being with Toba 100% of the time that she is with her parents.”
Ultimately, the court granted the sole right of possession of Toba to Ms. Glassen pursuant to s. 97(2)(a) of the FLA.
Summary
Who will the court determine gets possession of the family pet under B.C.’s family law legislation? The answer: one spouse.
Glassen signals a thoughtful, contextual approach to companion animal ownership disputes in family law (and in animal law) by applying the relational factors of the “best interests for all concerned” standard.
V. Victoria Shroff, KC, 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. Her book, Canadian Animal Law, 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.