Expanding the criteria to determine a pet’s ownership

Par Nadim Paul Fares, Avocat et Andrew Chen, Étudiant

Pouliot c. Plourde[1] is a case arising from the termination of a de facto union between Patricia Pouliot (“Madame”) and Mathieu Plourde-Sauvé (“Monsieur”). The dispute raises three principal issues: whether the parties’ immovable should be sold in order to terminate their undivided co-ownership; whether an occupation indemnity is owed for the exclusive use of the co-owned property; and which party should be recognized as the sole owner of the pets following the dissolution of their relationship.

Termination of undivided co-ownership

The court began its analysis by determining the respective shares of Madame and Monsieur in the property. Unless proven otherwise, the presumption of equal shares applies (art. 1015 C.C.Q.). Jurisprudence further clarifies that unequal contributions toward the down payment for an immovable, on their own, do not rebut this presumption, nor do they confer a right to indemnity on the party who paid a larger portion of the down payment, unless such an arrangement is expressly provided for in the deed of sale. Accordingly, both Madame and Monsieur are presumed to hold equal shares in the undivided property, notwithstanding the fact that Madame initially contributed a larger portion of the down payment for the building.

The tribunal then exercised its discretionary power in determining how the partition of the undivided property should take place, as no one is bound to remain in indivision (art. 1030 C.C.Q.). Given that the property is a single-family home, the parties do not wish to continue living together nor to divide the house. Moreover, their mutual disagreement makes a vente de gré à gré impossible. The tribunal therefore decided to proceed with the partition through the buyout of the property by one of the co-owners.

Occupation Indemnity and Other Compensation

The court specifies that indemnities, compensatory damages, and punitive damages may arise where one of the co-owners has the exclusive use and enjoyment of the property (art. 1016 C.C.Q.), particularly where such conduct infringes the fundamental rights of the excluded co-owner, including the peaceful enjoyment of the premises and the free disposition of property. The court therefore finds that Madame committed a civil fault, having acted in bad faith and caused economic prejudice to Monsieur.

The conclusion was based on several factors: (1) Monsieur was effectively forced out of the property after Madame changed the locks and engaged in intoxicated behaviour that caused him to fear for his safety; (2) during her period of exclusive occupation, Madame paid neither housing expenses nor common charges, thereby enriching herself at Monsieur’s expense (s’enrichir aux dépens d’autrui); (3) Monsieur was required to secure alternative housing and

incurred additional expenses in regaining possession of his condominium and terminating the residential lease of the tenants occupying it; and (4) the occupation indemnity could be reasonably established through a concrete monetary assessment.

Allocation of Pets Ownership

The court considers four principal legislative provisions in its assessment of the ownership of the pets. The court also recommends the use of the same criteria when it comes to allocating exclusive use or guardianship. First, article 898.1 of the Civil Code of Québec recognizes that animals are “sentient beings” with “biological needs.” This provision is supplemented by article 1(5) of the Animal Welfare and Safety Act (AWSA), which defines biological needs as “the basic physical, physiological and behavioural needs related to such factors as the animal’s species, subspecies, race, age, stage of growth, size, level of physical or physiological activity, sociability with humans and other animals, cognitive abilities and state of health, as well as those related to the animal’s capacity to adapt to cold, heat, or bad weather.”

The court further identifies the duties imposed on animal owners under articles 5 and 8 of the AWSA. These provisions require owners to ensure that the animal’s welfare and safety are not compromised and to provide the animal with stimulation, socialization, and environmental enrichment consistent with its biological needs. On this basis, the tribunal outlines several factors to consider in determining the allocation of the dogs, including: the presence of multiple animals, any evidence of negligence or mistreatment by one of the parties, the respective capacities and motivations of the parties to care for the dogs, their availability to provide care, and the degree of emotional attachment to the animals.

Applying these considerations to the case, the court concluded that Monsieur should be recognized as the sole owner of the dogs, as his testimony demonstrated a sustained commitment to their care. Several factors support this conclusion: (1) Monsieur was the individual who contacted the breeders, specifically sought out Great Danes, paid $800 and $1,600 respectively for the dogs, and selected their names in reference to the breed; (2) Monsieur, rather than Madame, was registered as the owner with the veterinarian; (3) Monsieur did not take the dogs with him initially only because he was temporarily residing at his sister’s home and intended to recover them once he obtained suitable accommodation, while Madame agreed to transfer the dogs only when she no longer wished to care for them; (4) Monsieur demonstrated a strong emotional attachment to the dogs and expressed a desire to keep them together, whereas Madame’s testimony suggested a relative indifference; and (5) Madame arranged for the sterilization of the dogs without clear justification, despite Monsieur’s emotional opposition and his intention to breed them in the future.

 Regime Analysis

The current portion of the text will focus on a transsystemic analysis of the current state of property in animals in Quebec civil law and Canadian common law, before proposing new alternative frameworks.

Historical and Current Analysis of Quebec Pet Custody Regime

Operationally, Quebec’s pet custody regime has changed little since the 1990s. Under the Civil Code of Lower Canada, animals were indistinguishable from other movable property (arts. 364, 375 C.c.B.C.), with no recognition of sentience, unlike article 898.1 of the CCQ, introduced in 2015. However, the operative functioning of the custody has remained generally the same as today’s.

Indeed, courts continue to reject the application of child custody logic to animals (Droit de la famille — 222162). Courts consistently use factors such as acquisition, intention, control, and use of the pet in order to determine true ownership of the animal. While article 898.1 of the CCQ refers to the well-being of the animal, and courts do acknowledge emotional bonds, daily care, and the living environments of pets, those factors are still framed as evidence of ownership. However, courts are signaling that there might be circumstances that might justify attributing exclusive use or guardianship despite a clear ownership title (Droit de la famille — 251080, 2025 QCCS 2859, paragraph 76 to 79), such as during the separation of a married couple with a child. .

Common Law Comparative Analysis of Pet Regime

Similarly, in Canadian common law, the regime of ownership over pets depends on Canadian property law. Indeed, pets are treated as chattels, or tangible and movable personal property.[2] Thus, when there is a dispute over animal property, the ownership of the pet is framed as a property division issue, not custody dispute.

Several elements are considered to determine what party holds title over the pet.[3] The main factor is how the pet was acquired, in which whether a party originally bought or adopted the animal serves as the starting point in determining ownership.[4] If ownership has been transferred without a transaction during the animal’s lifetime, a gift analysis applies, in which the new owner must prove that the animal has been received as a valid gift in order to demonstrate the transfer of ownership. Merely spending money or providing care is not determinative of a transfer of ownership, although these can serve as factors reinforcing the existence of a title.[5] Outside acquisition, courts may also look at objective records such as registration, veterinary records, and licensing as evidence to determine ownership claims.

Questions of who is the “better owner” or what is the best for the animal are not of the analysis considered by the courts.[6] However, Ontario’s Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act can order the forfeiture of the animal in cases of abuses. However, the Act mainly serves to impose a regulatory obligation on existing owners having custody of an animal and does not play a role in actively deciding ownership between parties.

A push for personhood

Some advocacy groups have been pushing for a change in the legal recognition of animals, both within Canada and abroad. While these propositions would certainly mark a departure from current animal conceptualization within law, they are not concerned with pet custody arrangements. Rather, they focus on protecting the well-being of the animals themselves, similar to Quebec’s Animal and Welfare Security Act, or Ontario’s Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

Animal Justice, a Canadian advocacy group, has proposed an “Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Animals” where animals would be recognized as legal subjects, marking a shift from object-based protection to subject-based rights.[7] The proposal envisions the Charter as granting core rights such as right to life, bodily integrity, and freedom from suffering and cruelty. Similarly, Nonhuman Rights Project, an US-based organization aimed at protecting cognitively complex animals such as chimpanzees and elephants, also seek recognition of certain animals as legal persons. Its efforts focus on strategic litigation in common law courts rather than statutory reform,[8] working within existing law to protect animals from unjust exploitation.

Conclusion

Pouliot c Plourde is a case in which pet ownership is addressed in a rather classical legal manner during the separation of an unmarried couple, despite expanding the criteria to determine ownership. In both common law and civil law, the operating framework is similar: animals are considered property, and custody is determined based on ownership, primarily through acquisition. While other factors related to the well-being of animals are acknowledged, they are used as evidence to establish pre-existing ownership rather than to determine a more appropriate allocation of ownership

---

[1] Pouliot c. Plourde-Sauvé, 2026 QCCS 115.

[2] Lazare Jodi, “‘Who Gets the Dog?’: A Family Law Approach” (2020) 45:2 Queen’s LJ 287 at 299.

[3] Ibid at 307.

[4] Baker v. Harmina, 2018 NLCA 15 at para 13.

[5] Ibid at para 42; Lazare, supra note 2 at 313.

[6] Lazare, supra note 2 at 290.

[7] Animal Justice, “AJCLF Launches Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Animals” (18 November 2014), online: < https://animaljustice.ca/media-releases/animal-justice-launches-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms-for-animals>.

[8] Non Human Rights, “Challenging the rightlessness of nonhuman animals” (2026), online: < https://www.nonhumanrights.org/litigation/>.