What Ontario family-law practitioners should know after a landmark Turkish case
A divorce settlement in Istanbul, Turkey has stirred global interest: a recently-ended marriage included a clause requiring the ex-spouse to pay ongoing “cat support” for the couple’s two felines for up to ten years.
While the ruling is not binding in Ontario, its implications are worth noting for family law lawyers navigating the evolving terrain of pet ownership, custody and support in separation contexts.
The Facts: What Happened in Turkey
- The couple, identified as Buğra B. and Ezgi B., divorced after two years of marriage in Istanbul.
- As part of the settlement, the two cats were awarded to Ezgi’s custody. The husband agreed to pay 10,000 Turkish lira (approx. US$240) every three months, for up to ten years (or until the cats pass away), to cover their food, veterinary care and upkeep.
- Although pets remain classified as “movable property” under Turkish civil law, commentators say this marks a possible shift toward treating animals more like dependents in separation contexts.
Why This Matters for Ontario/Canadian Family Law
1. Evolving view of pets as family
While Ontario courts still treat pets as personal property (not children or dependents), this case underlines a growing cultural shift — and may prompt parties to raise pet-care issues more frequently in separations and divorces.
2. Custody and support discussions
Traditionally, pet ownership in a separation might be settled by agreement or property division rather than ongoing support obligations. This case introduces the concept of ongoing animal-care payments in a settlement. It doesn’t mean Ontario courts will adopt the same approach, but it signals client expectations may change.
3. Pre-emptive agreements (“pet-nups”)
Given the rise in blended households, second marriages, and couples treating pets as children, clients may increasingly ask for:
- Who keeps the pet after separation/divorce?
- Who pays for ongoing pet expenses (vet bills, food, etc)?
- What happens if the pet dies, is re-homed, or relocated?
In Ontario, including a pet-specific clause in a separation agreement or co-habitation contract can help avoid future dispute.
Practical Guidance for Ontario Family-Law Practitioners
- Advise early: Raise pet-ownership and expense issues during intake.
- Clarify status: Remind clients that under Ontario law pets are still property — not subject to spousal or child support, though parties can contract around them.
- Draft clear clauses: Example wording might address:
- Who retains ownership of the pet after separation?
- What payments (if any) will be made for the pet’s upkeep? When do they stop?
- What happens if the pet dies, is sold, or moves jurisdictions?
- Be aware of jurisdictional issues: If a pet moves with a spouse internationally (e.g., to Turkey or the U.S.), different legal standards may apply.
- Prepare for client expectations: As cultural norms shift, clients may expect “pet alimony” or support clauses. While not standard in Ontario, preparing them for what current law allows is key.
A Word of Caution
- Advice to Canadian clients should emphasise the law in Ontario. The Turkish ruling does not create binding precedent here.
- Family-law practitioners should monitor developments: if Canadian courts begin recognising “pet care” obligations, practice templates may evolve accordingly.
The Istanbul settlement may seem far-flung, but its ripple effects could reach Canadian family-law offices. As client expectations evolve around pets and relationships, practitioners at Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers should stay ahead — facilitating clear agreements, raising issues proactively, and preparing clients for the full spectrum of separation consequences (human and non-human alike).
