Introduction: Ontario’s Pet Paradox
In recent years, pets have assumed a central place in households, families and in the hearts of pet owners. This marks a significant shift in how people conceptualize family, companionship, and emotional attachment. Statistics indicate that more than 70 percent of pet owners describe their animals as family members. This categorization has intensified since the COVID-19 pandemic, which recorded a surge in ownership as many Canadians sough comfort, stability and companionship amid social isolation.[1] Despite this social shift, the law in Ontario continues to categorize pets as mere personal property, a categorization increasingly viewed as archaic, and out of step with expectations and understandings of the pet and pet owner bond.
This “pet paradox” refers to the disconnect between the evolved status of pets within a family unit and the legal treatment of pets amidst a familial breakdown. Ontario courts have long taken the position that pets are to be viewed and treated like personal property. In the recent case of Franco v Franco[2], Justice Kraft notably reaffirmed the classification of pets as personal property, reiterating Justice Papageorgiou’s decision in Duboff v Simpson[3] that the “rightful” owner of the pet was the person who purchased and paid for the pet. Despite the relational factors to consider, as laid out in MacDonald[4], Justice Kraft’s legal analysis concluded that questions of who owns a pet are resolved as matters of personal property and not by applying a best-interest framework. The legal test and application of how pets are treated under the Family Law Act in Ontario present clear frustrations for pet owners.*[5] Pet owners have expectations vis-a-vis their pets that are in line with the views expressed by Justice Hoegg in her dissenting decision in Baker v Harmina,[6] which explored the relational approach to determining who owned the family pet. Justice Hoegg recognized the unique complexity and nuanced approach necessary to make such a determination. Despite Her Honour’s detailed and praised approach in recognizing the importance in considering factors beyond mere ownership, Ontario judges continue to resolve disputes over family pets after separation based on ownership and not the best interests of the animal. The result is a growing frustration among litigants, lawyers and judges who must navigate a system ill-equipped to address the complexity of pet relationships. Ownership of pets has been determined by traditional legal tests of possession, purchase, and control rather than by relational or welfare considerations. Courts have occasionally expressed discomfort with this reductive view, but absent legislative reform, they remain bound by it. The inconsistency is exacerbated by varying provincial approaches: while British Columbia and Saskatchewan have introduced limited recognition of pets’ sentient status, Ontario’s legislative framework remains silent on the issue. Judicial commentary reflects this struggle. Justice Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court noted in Henderson v. Henderson[7] that while pets are property in the legal sense, “treating them as such fails to reflect modern social realities.”
Ontario is now at a critical juncture, poised to modernize its family law framework by integrating a tool that already exists within its legal infrastructure: domestic contracts. By adapting these agreements to include provisions for pets, Ontario can pioneer a new mechanism, which we have termed “PawpertyTM Agreements”, to resolve pet-related disputes more fairly, cost-effectively, and in line with each pet owner’s unique circumstances.
The Call for Reform
The inadequacy of the current legal framework lies not only in its doctrinal rigidity but also in its failure to respect the autonomy of parties to define their own relational terms, including how to deal with their pets. Canadian family law already provides mechanisms through which parties can structure their personal and financial affairs, most notably through domestic contracts under the Family Law Act. These agreements, whether marriage contracts, cohabitation agreements, or separation agreements, allow individuals to privately determine their rights and obligations in ways that reflect their unique circumstances. Extending this logic to pet ownership disputes offers a promising path forward.
The concept of “private ordering” is deeply embedded in Ontario’s family law system. It reflects the principle that individuals are best positioned to govern their own affairs, provided that their agreements comply with public policy and statutory requirements. Allowing owners to set out their intentions by contract could increase certainty and reduce litigation costs. It would rely on existing contractual principles.
The introduction of PawpertyTM Agreements is proposed as a specialized, independently operating domestic contract under the Family Law Act. Such agreements would enable parties to articulate their rights and responsibilities regarding pets in a structured and legally enforceable manner. These agreements could be executed between spouses, cohabiting partners under the Family Law Act, and most interestingly, between roommates, or even non-familial co-owners outside the Family Law Act, following foundational contract law principles, reflecting the diversity of modern living arrangements and the many contexts in which animals are shared.
A PawpertyTM Agreement could include provisions addressing ownership and possession (clarifying who holds legal and physical custody of the pet), roles and responsibilities, visitation and time sharing provisions with the pet, decision-making authority, financial obligations, as well as including a dispute resolution clause that the parties agree to at the time this Agreement is entered into in case either party takes issue with an part of the agreement in future. By situating these agreements within the Family Law Act, Ontario would accord the same criteria for enforceability as other domestic contracts, subject to the same safeguards against unconscionability and duress. This approach preserves judicial oversight while empowering individuals to define their own pet-related arrangements. It also aligns with the principle of contractual freedom: a cornerstone of both family and private law. Increasingly, we have seen courts give deference to domestic contracts, with the view that individuals should be able to govern their own private matters. In doing so, PawpertyTM Agreements solve many problems simultaneously.
The adoption, integration and use of PawpertyTM Agreements would generate several tangible benefits for Ontario’s legal system and pet owners alike. Most notably, they would provide legal certainty and predictability. Contractual terms would delineate the parties’ respective rights and obligations, thereby reducing the uncertainty that presently gives rise to disputes. The jurisprudence in this area affords little practical assistance and fails to keep pace with prevailing social attitudes toward pets. Instead, relational factors[8] can be incorporated into these agreements to ensure that the best interests of the pet[9] are reflected and are suited to the specific needs and requests of the pet owners.
Another notable benefit of would be that of judicial efficiency. By diverting many pet disputes away from the courts and lengthy and costly litigation, PawpertyTM Agreements would alleviate judicial workload and court backlog. Moreover, it would keep pet matters in the hands of pet owners, rather than in the courts subject to the decisions of Ontario judges who have made their views on this matter clear. Pet disputes that are litigated will be decided in accordance with ownership, despite several judges recognizing that pets are a unique type of property.[10] Courts would do well in upholding these agreements as the number of such cases increases, and in the absence of PawpertyTM Agreements, judges will continue to confront the emotional disputes brought by pet owners in protracted and costly proceedings, with parties awaiting decisions that, in effect, ask the court to venture beyond the legal definition.
PawpertyTM Agreements, unlike court proceedings, can be drafted and executed with minimal cost and tailored to the parties’ needs. They provide a forum for cooperative problem-solving rather than adversarial litigation, which is an outcome particularly desirable given the emotional sensitivity surrounding pet disputes. At its core, a PawpertyTM Agreement is proactive rather than reactive. It can be entered into at any stage, meaning that two parties can enter into this agreement at any time during a relationship’s lifespan. Even if two persons are contemplating getting a pet, they can enter into a PawpertyTM Agreement in contemplation of said pet, outlining roles and responsibilities ahead of time, so that the parties would be aware of what to expect during the relationship and after.
Ontario’s adoption of PawpertyTM Agreements could serve as a model for other provinces, fostering greater uniformity across Canada. Much as Ontario’s Family Law Act has historically influenced legislative developments nationwide, this reform could prompt a re-evaluation of how other jurisdictions address pet-related disputes.
Addressing Possible Concerns
Skeptics may question whether such agreements would risk commodifying pets or encouraging contractual overreach into intimate spheres of family life. However, these concerns are mitigated by the voluntary nature of domestic contracts and the judiciary’s existing oversight mechanisms. Courts already assess domestic agreements for fairness and unconscionability; the same standards would apply here. Furthermore, the introduction of PawpertyTM Agreements would not alter the legal classification of pets as property, it merely allows for a more nuanced solution to pet owners dissatisfied with the outcome they would likely achieve if they litigated over their pet in court.
Enforceability may also be questioned. Provisions that mimic “visitation” conflict with established property principles, though courts have shown a gradual shift toward more flexible handling of such disputes. Embedding these terms in the Family Law Act would give judges a firmer interpretive basis and reduce ambiguity. It is important for us to remember that contracts are not meant to be rewritten by the judiciary; they are designed to be formal agreements between two private persons deciding over their own personal matters, and the role of the courts over said contracts should really be limited to upholding these agreements and enforcing them, rather than deciding on issues previously agreed upon by the parties themselves.
Leaping Forward
The central problem is the gap between social expectation and legal definition. Ontario is seeing an increase in pet disputes, yet the law still treats animals as ordinary property, comparable to a household object, while owners regard them as family. This disparity requires attention. PawpertyTM Agreements offer such a solution and responds pragmatically to the pet paradox by harnessing the existing framework of domestic contracts under the Family Law Act, Ontario can empower individuals to resolve pet-related matters privately, fairly, and efficiently.
This proposal does not require an overhaul of existing legislation; it builds upon principles already embedded in Ontario’s legal culture: autonomy, fairness, and respect for personal relationships. In doing so, it aligns the law more closely with modern values and reduces unnecessary strain on the courts. As societal understandings of companionship and pets continue to evolve, so too must our legal frameworks. Recognizing and institutionalizing PawpertyTM Agreements would represent a meaningful step toward a more responsive, consistent, and humane approach to pet disputes; one that acknowledges that while pets may still be property in law, they should be allowed to be viewed and treated as family by their owners. PawpertyTM Agreements reflecting same should therefore not only be adopted but should become the benchmark for disputes arising between pet owners about their pets, and should ultimately be upheld and enforced by the courts.
*PawpertyTM is a term conceived by Family Law lawyers Gobind Grewal and Nandishi Bekah to represent the specific agreement to be entered into by pet owners, Pawperty has been Trademarked and is owned by Gobind Grewal. These agreements are stand alone agreements and can be added as a specific part to another domestic contract, such as a separation agreement, cohabitation agreement, or marriage contract. Outside family law, these agreements can also be entered into by non-romantic relationships, applied through broader contract law principles as a stand alone agreement.
[1] Canadian Animal Health Institute, "2022 — Latest Canadian Pet Population Figures Released" (3 May 2023), online: .
[2] Franco v. Franco, 2024 ONSC 6436, 2024 CarswellOnt 18069 (Ont. S.C.J.).
[3] Duboff v. Simpson, 2021 ONSC 4970.
[4] MacDonald v. Pearl, 2017 NSSM 5 at para. 25 (N.S. Small Cl. Ct.).
[5] *The term “pet owner” here is used to describe any persons who possess and care for a household animal, and not necessarily the owner of said animal per the legal definition of owner.
[6] Baker v. Harmina, 2018 NLCA 15, 2018 CarswellNfld 68 (N.L. C.A.)
[7] Henderson v. Henderson, 2016 SKQB 282 at paras. 44-45 (Sask. Q.B.).
[8] Coates v. Dickson, 2021 ONSC 992 at para. 8 (Ont. S.C.J.).
[9] MacDonald v. Pearl, 2017 NSSM 5 at para. 25 (N.S. Small Cl. Ct.)
[10] Rogers v. Rogers, 1980 CarswellOnt 2449, [1980] O.J. No. 2229 (QL) at para. 5 (Ont. Dist. Ct.).
