BC Court Orders Couple to Share Custody of Pet After Split Following Family Law Change

BC Court Orders Couple to Share Custody of Pet After Split Following Family Law Change
A Golden Retriever is seen in a file photo. Cindy Ord/Getty Images
Chandra Philip
Updated:
0:00

A B.C. court has granted shared custody of a family dog after the couple broke up, in line with a new provincial law where pets are treated as members of the family, not property.

Stella, a golden retriever, will be splitting her time between Sahar Bayat and her former partner, Omid Mavedati, after a B.C. Supreme Court judge decided both loved and cared for the animal.

“Both the claimant and the respondent have shown a deep concern about the well being of Stella, and I am satisfied that in the circumstances the custody of Stella should be shared on an interim without‑prejudice basis,” Associate Judge Scott Nielsen wrote in his decision. “I am going to make an order that the claimant and the respondent share the custody of Stella 50/50 on a week-on/week-off basis.”

Ms. Bayat had applied to the court to have sole custody of the dog, claiming that Mr. Mavedati was neglectful.

The couple began living together in April 2020 and separated in February 2023, according to the decision.

Stella was bought in August 2020. However, the court noted that Ms. Bayat’s name was not on the dog’s “birth certificate.”

“The claimant submits the reason she is not on Stella’s birth certificate is due to a lack of knowledge on her part that she could have been included, and because the respondent advised her there could only be one name on Stella’s birth certificate,” Judge Nielsen wrote.

In January, Section 7 of the B.C. Family Law Act was amended to include a subsection that requires Supreme Court judges to consider various factors when making a court order about a  “companion animal.” These include how the animal was acquired, who cared for the pet, family violence, cruelty by either party toward the pet, the relationship a child has with the animal, and the willingness of the parties to care for the animal.

“The recent amendments to the Family Law Act essentially put the ownership of a companion animal, such as Stella, in the context of something that goes beyond ownership of a chattel. The sentience of the animal is recognized to the extent that the criteria reflect,” Judge Nielsen said.

“Both the claimant and the respondent are busy professionals. Both the claimant and the respondent clearly love Stella. They have invested considerable legal fees and have made multiple court applications with a view to the best interests of Stella,” he wrote in the court decision.