For many people, pets are family. They share homes, routines, emotional bonds, and daily life with their owners. When a relationship ends, disputes over pets can be just as emotionally charged as disagreements about finances or parenting. A recent Alberta decision serves as a blunt reminder that, despite how people feel, Canadian family law does not always see pets the same way owners do.
In Singh v Smith, 2025 ABKB 715, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench was asked to decide who would keep four cats following the breakdown of a relationship. The case has drawn attention because it confirms a legal position that often surprises separating couples: pets are treated as property, not family members.
The Legal Issue Before the Court
Both parties in Singh v Smith asked the court to determine ownership of the cats. Each argued that the court should consider what would be in the best interests of the animals, similar to how courts assess parenting arrangements for children. The judge declined to do so.
Under Alberta law, pets are classified as personal property. As a result, the court was required to apply property division principles rather than an animal welfare or best interests analysis. The emotional attachment each party felt toward the cats was acknowledged but carried no legal weight.
How the Court Reached Its Decision
Because the law treats pets as property, the court focused on ownership and fairness rather than caregiving or emotional bonds. The judge examined how the cats were acquired, how they were treated during the relationship, and what outcome would amount to an equitable division of property.
Rather than awarding all four cats to one person, the court ordered a split. Each party received two cats. This outcome was not based on what would be best for the animals but on what the court viewed as a fair division of jointly owned property.
The decision made it clear that Alberta courts will not create custody style arrangements for pets or impose shared care schedules unless the parties themselves agree to them.
Why This Case Matters
Singh v Smith highlights a gap between how the law views pets and how most people experience them. Many separating couples assume that courts will consider who walked the dog more often, who paid the vet bills, or who has the stronger emotional bond. In Alberta, those factors are secondary at best.
Unless there is a written agreement, courts will focus on ownership evidence such as purchase or adoption records, registration documents, and financial contributions. Emotional attachment alone is not enough to determine the outcome.
While this case was decided in Alberta, the reasoning is relevant across Canada. In Ontario and most other provinces, pets are still legally classified as property. Although there have been discussions about treating companion animals differently, the law has not yet fully caught up with social realities.
Practical Lessons for Separating Couples
This decision underscores the importance of addressing pets directly in separation agreements. Couples who negotiate their own arrangements have far more flexibility than a court does. They can agree on ownership, shared expenses, or even informal visitation arrangements if that is what works for them.
Without an agreement, parties risk having a judge impose a property solution that feels arbitrary or emotionally unsatisfying. Litigation often strips away nuance and replaces it with blunt outcomes.
For lawyers advising clients, this case is a reminder to raise the issue of pets early in the separation process and to manage expectations carefully. Clients should understand that courts are limited by how the law currently classifies animals.
Final Thoughts
Singh v Smith is not really about cats. It is about the limits of family law and the importance of planning. Until legislatures change how pets are treated under the law, courts will continue to approach these disputes as property issues, even when that result feels disconnected from real life.
For separating couples who share pets, the message is clear. If the animals matter to you, deal with them thoughtfully and proactively in an agreement. Leaving the decision to a judge may lead to an outcome that satisfies the law but not the people or the pets involved.
