Law

“You can keep the car, but I get Fluffy!”

When the bailiff knocks at Ted’s door to take the six-month-old Maltese, Benji, to live with his ex-wife, the court representative gets the door slammed in his face. There’s no way Ted will part with his dog.

Bad move for Ted. On June 19, 2000, in the Court of Quebec, the plaintiff wins the case and Ted is found guilty of contempt of court. “W e are seeing more and more of these kinds of situations where pets are involved in custody battles. Pets are an emerging legal entity, ”  says Professor Alain Roy of the Faculty of Law at the Université de Montréal.

In research recently published in the Canadian Bar Review, the family law expert summarized the body of knowledge on pets in Canada, Europe and the United States. The report is a page turner. “ For instance, in Leffers v. Da Silva, the owner of a kitten savagely killed by a Saint Bernard who had escaped from his owner, obtained a meagre $183.99 in compensation, representing the amount he paid for his ill-fated feline friend. ”

Then there was the tragic case of a veterinary clinic employee who accidentally put a Pomeranian in a cage with two wrinkle-lipped bats. Needless to say the Pomeranian didn’t stand a chance. Or take the claimant who sued a veterinarian for having lost the ashes of his beloved cat whom he wanted to “ bury with dignity ” .

In court, plaintiffs who win their cases are awarded paltry compensation despite strong emotional ties to their pets. “Because the Civil Code defines animals as objects, judges must consider them as such and apply judicial rules that govern the loss of property, ” explains the legal scholar.

Under the Civil Code, you are either a ‘ person’ or a ‘thing’. Animals pay the price for this black and white view, since they don’t fit into either category. “A t the moment, if a couple separates, the court has no choice but to consider the pet as the equivalent of a dishwasher or hide-a-bed. They simply calculate the value and divide by two. ”

As a result, more and more couples are agreeing to shared custody when they separate, or finding a solution that is in the best interest of the pet. But if the pet’s fate becomes the subject of a legal dispute, the law offers little support. “ I think the law must be amended to include the status of pets, ” says Professor Roy, who has a cat.

However, Professor Roy advises caution. Animals must never become ‘ persons’ with rights similar to those of their owners, but their status as ‘ objects ’ is clearly inappropriate. “P ets are not objects to be viewed through the same legal lens as personal property, which leads to ridiculous rulings poorly adapted to today’s reality, ” says Professor Roy in the conclusion of his report.