The recent decision in Glassen v. Glassen, 2025 BCSC 640, marks the first time a BC court has applied the new companion animal provisions of the Family Law Act in a final decision. This ruling sheds light on how courts will decide who gets custody of pets upon separation.
When relationships break down, deciding who gets the dog or any other beloved pet can become one of the most emotionally charged issues. In BC, the Family Law Act now acknowledges the special status of companion animals and directs courts to assess a broad range of factors when determining who should retain ownership.
Companion Animals and the Court's Role
The Family Law Act defines a companion animal as "an animal that is kept primarily for the purpose of companionship". The Court has the power to order who keeps a companion animal upon separation and when doing so they must consider a number of specific factors, including the circumstances in which the companion animal was acquired, each party's role in caring for the animal, any history or risk of family violence, and the animal's relationship with any children. The rules governing excluded property do not apply to companion animals, which means a court may always make orders regarding their ownership.
Taken together, these provisions ensure that courts adopt a holistic and welfare-focused approach when determining the future of a companion animal rather than treating it as an ordinary asset to be divided.
Glassen v. Glassen: The Case of Toba
Glassen provides a practical application of the principles relating to companion animals. Among the various issues before the Court was a dispute over Toba, the family dog.
The parties initially shared Toba after their separation, with each spouse caring for the dog on alternating weeks. However, the situation deteriorated when Ms. Glassen's work schedule changed, making the original Friday handovers impractical. Despite her repeated efforts to communicate with Mr. Glassen and suggest alternative arrangements, he refused to respond. Eventually, Ms. Glassen advised Mr. Glassen that she could no longer comply with the existing exchange schedule. Mr. Glassen reacted strongly, accusing her of unilaterally violating their agreement.
At trial, Mr. Glassen argued that the Court should order he and Ms. Glassen share time with Toba equally. The Court noted that the Family Law Act expressly prohibits orders for joint ownership or shared possession of a companion animal and accordingly declined to make such an order.
The Court then went on to order that Ms. Glassen have sole ownership of Toba, likely relying on the fact that she had had sole possession of Toba since December 2023 and that Mr. Glassen had acted unreasonably in arranging care for Toba.
Clarifying Prior Court Decisions
Before Glassen, it was unclear whether courts in BC could order shared possession of a companion animal. This uncertainty stemmed from Bayat v. Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619, where the Court made an interim order allowing the parties to share custody of their dog until trial. The Court made this order despite the Family Law Act prohibiting joint ownership and shared possession, causing much confusion amongst family law practitioners. Glassen confirms that the Family Law Act prohibits final orders for shared possession or joint ownership. However, as illustrated in Bayat, interim shared arrangements may still be permissible while a dispute is ongoing.
Takeaways for Pet Owners
Glassen is a clear reminder that BC courts no longer treat pets as mere property. When deciding who should keep a companion animal, courts now focus on the pet's well-being and consider the bonds it has with each spouse and with any children involved. Deciding who should keep a beloved pet can be complex and emotionally challenging. If you are facing separation and share a companion animal, please contact Matt Ostrow, Ty Bradford, or any other member of the Clark Wilson Family Law group.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
