Pets After Breakups: Alberta Rejects “Best Interests of the Cat”

Every so often a case crosses our desks that reminds us why pet-law disputes tug so hard on people’s hearts, and also why the courts have such a tough job keeping those hearts separate from the actual legal framework.

Introducing Singh v Smith, 2025 ABKB 715, a case that begins with four cats, two humans, one breakup, and a whirlwind of feelings. It ends with a judge explaining, with admirable empathy, why Alberta is not ready for a “best interests of the cat” doctrine.

Background

Mr. Singh and Ms. Smith lived together from 2016 to 2022, and during those years became the proud humans of four cats: Salem, Diablo, Zora and Samara.

When the couple split in March 2023, emotions ran high. Ms. Smith left the home one evening after a fight, and when she returned the next day… the cats were gone! Mr. Singh had crated them up and whisked them away.

Legally and emotionally, this decision set the tone for the year-long cat custody battle that followed.

A trial in November 2024 resulted in the felines being divided equally between their humans.

  • Mr. Singh: Zora and Samara
  • Ms. Smith: Salem and Diablo

Neither party was thrilled, and both insisted the Court should have applied some version of a “best interests of the cat” analysis. As a result, an appeal was filed.

Appeal

On appeal, both parties argued that the determining standard should be the “best interests of the cat.” Justice Mah firmly rejected the existence of such a test in Alberta.

While the Court acknowledged:

  • pets are no longer treated solely as inanimate property;
  • companion animals form emotional bonds with people; and
  • courts across Canada have gradually adopted more nuanced approaches to pet disputes, the Court was not willing to recognize a “best interests” framework analogous to child-custody principles.

Justice Mah contrasted Alberta’s approach with developments in British Columbia and elsewhere, where courts and legislatures have moved toward more welfare-based considerations. In Alberta, however, absent direction from the Court of Appeal or legislative reform, the governing analysis remains one of ownership, informed by contextual factors.

The Applicable Legal Framework

Justice Mah endorsed the factors set out in MacDonald v Pearl, 2017 NSSM 5 and referenced in the dissenting reasons in Baker v Harmina, 2018 NLCA 15 for determining pet ownership. These include:

  • prior ownership or possession of the animal;
  • express or implied agreements regarding ownership;
  • the parties’ relationship at the time the pet was acquired;
  • who purchased, raised, or cared for the animal;
  • who paid expenses;
  • what occurred after the relationship ended; and
  • any other relevant indicia of ownership.

The Court also recognized two additional discretionary factors:

  • the demonstrated ability and willingness of each party to properly care for the pet; and
  • the strength of bonds between the pet and the party seeking ownership, including bonds with “peer pets”.

This framework permits a humane, contextualized assessment without transforming pet disputes into quasi-custody proceedings.

Justice Mah also found that while the Court is willing to acknowledge that dogs’ have an emotional life and was prepared to accept that cats’ have an emotional life because “so many people own cats and form attachments with them”, (Justice Mah does not appear to be a cat owner as it is perfectly clear to the writer that cats have feelings) he drew a line:

  • dogs and cats, yes.
  • Hamsters, parrots, reptiles, and fish… no.

Somewhere in Alberta, a hamster is likely devising an appeal.

Application of the Framework

The Court of King’s Bench found no error in the trial judge’s application of the ownership factors.

Key findings included:

  • The parties were joint owners of all four cats.
  • Both were capable caregivers.
  • Both contributed to the cats’ expenses during the relationship.
  • Each had exclusive care of the cats for substantial periods post-separation.
  • No compelling evidence supported awarding all cats to one party or maintaining the cats as a complete group.
  • Given joint ownership and the equitable jurisdiction under s. 9.6 of the Court of Justice Act, RSA 2000, c C-30.5, it was appropriate for the trial judge to divide the cats equally. This approach aligned with decisions from other jurisdictions where courts have ordered equitable division of jointly owned pets.

Key points for clients:

  1. Alberta does not recognize a “best interests of the pet” test.
  2. Companion animals are legally considered property, though courts apply a contextual, humane ownership analysis.
  3. Joint ownership may justify dividing pets between parties.
  4. Claims for pet-related expenses will be assessed in light of ownership, equitable considerations, and the parties’ respective periods of exclusive care.

Cases like Singh v Smith highlight a legal system trying to balance:

  • the emotional realities of pet families;
  • the need for predictable legal standards;
  • and the limitations of property law in capturing what animals mean to us

The Court didn’t adopt a “best interests of the cat” test, but it did acknowledge sentience, emotional bonds, and the importance of a humane, context-sensitive approach.